Oral Answers to Questions

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Tourism (Kent)

Howard Stoate: What steps the Government are taking to promote tourism and support the tourist industry in Kent Thames-side.

Tessa Jowell: With the agreement of the Chief Secretary, I am delighted to inform the House that we will make available up to £20 million of additional public funds to promote Britain abroad as a tourist destination. This campaign will benefit Kent Thames-side. It will be targeted at our seven key markets, including the United States as well as France, Germany and the Netherlands.
	This is the first time that the Government have created such a powerful public-private coalition with industry organisations. The industry has already committed about £5 million in cash, and we will match industry funds pound for pound. It is a fantastic opportunity for recovery from the blows of foot and mouth and the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York on 11 September. It is also a model for the overdue modernisation of the industry as a whole. I hope that the House will welcome that announcement.

Howard Stoate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that news, which my constituents will welcome.
	As my right hon. Friend will know, Kent Thames-side is one of the most rapidly developing economic- regeneration areas in Europe. It is struggling hard to shake off its old industrial image and become a vibrant, modern, forward-looking region. What can the Government do to ensure that Kent Thames-side—particularly my constituency—is put on the tourist map, so that those who do visit this country can benefit from its many charms?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is himself a powerful advocate of those charms. Moreover, as he will know, the successful investment of lottery funds has brought about the regeneration of Chatham dockyard, and the Channel tunnel international railway station at Ebbsfleet, which will attract more visitors to the area, will be completed in 2003. An industry that already brings £195 million into Kent is set to grow.

Tim Loughton: I hope that my question will not be misconstrued as unparliamentary language.
	Has the Secretary of State received the same response as me when raising the subject of the British Tourist Authority's new tourism promotion campaign, especially from Americans—not so much "UK OK!" as a bemused "UKOK?"? How does she think that will help to promote tourism in Kent Thames-side and the rest of Britain? Does she consider it a worthy successor to Cool Britannia?

Tessa Jowell: Let me deal with that question as constructively as I can. The slogan "UKOK" and the marketing that accompanied it were subjected to the usual rigorous testing. There are decisions that professionals make about marketing slogans and marketing content; I am prepared to accept the judgment of those professionals, and then to reach conclusions about effectiveness judging by results. All the feedback that we have received from the United States suggests that the "UKOK" campaign has been marketed very well there, but proof will be provided by the number of additional visitors that it brings to Britain.

Tom Clarke: Given the British Tourist Authority's commitment to promoting the whole of Britain overseas, does my right hon. Friend share my concern at the opinions attributed to Mr. Philip Riddell of VisitScotland, who says that this year the American market should be regarded as a lost cause for Scotland? Will she join me and the people of Scotland in disagreeing profoundly with that view and encouraging the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting—who I understand is going to America this week—to promote Scotland as well as the rest of the United Kingdom this year? We want to make a new start in presenting a new Britain to the Americans.

Tessa Jowell: I unreservedly oppose the view taken by VisitScotland. It is a dismal, pessimistic view that is simply not borne out by the evidence of an increasing number of American visitors who want to visit Europe. We particularly want to persuade them to visit Britain in this jubilee year to celebrate the Commonwealth games. There is always a good reason to visit Britain; this year, being American is a particularly good reason.

David Burnside: Does the Secretary of State agree that the most effective form of marketing is the press and public relations, which are more cost-effective than advertising? This year, do we not have the greatest news peg in the Queen's golden jubilee? Will the right hon. Lady try to persuade the marketing experts and gurus—who have not been very impressive up to now—to use it to bring tourists into England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—indeed the whole of the British Isles? Will she also make representations to the palace to the effect that all members of the royal family should act as ambassadors this year, especially in the United States and the Commonwealth, and encourage tourism into the United Kingdom?

Tessa Jowell: Marketing and press coverage go together. The funding that I have announced today will do just that. The jubilee year is a great opportunity to increase the number of tourists from America, which is particularly important because on average for every £1 a domestic tourist spends, an American visitor spends £6. It is important for the economy. We want tourists to visit the whole of the United Kingdom. Prince Charles has already signalled his support by writing a foreword to the heritage map in support of the marketing campaign to bring people to Britain.

Derek Wyatt: I know that most hon. Members feel that they are national treasures, but may I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to north Kent again? My constituency has the largest wetland in Britain, yet we do not market it at all. We are struggling to understand how best to work with the tourist authorities to obtain the full value of tourism. The White Paper did not explain whether we needed more museums, art galleries or whatever else we have in our constituencies. Will she comment on that?

Tessa Jowell: My hon. Friend is right. In his constituency and throughout the UK there are unexplored and hidden treasures. I hope that a more aggressive approach to marketing, more streamlined communications and putting more information on line will help to deal with that, but the regional development agencies have a tremendously important part to play. Their performance in this area is somewhat variable, but he should urge his RDA to conduct an audit of unrecorded visitor attractions in his constituency and beyond to ensure that they are part of the marketing information that is developed.

John Greenway: We warmly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement of matched funding for the BTA, which we advocated more than two years ago, although it has taken two major crises to persuade the Government to take an interest in tourism. Does she recognise that 80 per cent. of visitors to English regions, such as Kent Thames-side with its unique facilities, are domestic tourists, and that there is nothing in the announcement to encourage people in England to take holidays and short breaks at home? When will the Government put tourism in England on the same footing as tourism in Scotland and Wales by restoring the marketing role to the English Tourism Council, which the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting has acknowledged should never have been taken away by the Government?

Tessa Jowell: I am delighted that today's announcement has attracted such strong cross-party support. It is a pity that the Opposition did not invest in tourism when they were in government. However, the hon. Gentleman has been generous in support of the announcement. I and my hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting agree that we need a more vigorous and focused marketing organisation for England. We are discussing with the various organisations how that will be achieved.

Museums (Nottingham)

Graham Allen: When she plans to meet the Council for Museums and Libraries to discuss the funding of regional museums in Nottingham.

Kim Howells: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for the Arts regularly meets Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, the chairman of resource, the Council for Museums and Libraries, to discuss the funding of museums in all the English regions, including the east midlands.

Graham Allen: My hon. Friend will be aware of the rich diversity of museums in Nottingham: there is not just the traditional Robin Hood, Nottingham castle, Newstead abbey and Wollaton hall, but contemporary shows such as the Warhol exhibition and very good outreach work by the city council in the education sector. Will he take the opportunity to visit Nottingham in the near future, above all to discuss the co-ordination between the four counties of Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire on the renaissance in the regions fund? There is £267 million in that fund, and I assure my hon. Friend that if he comes to Nottingham we will make a good case as to why we should have at least our fair share of that.

Kim Howells: I look forward to that visit, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will make a good case; he always does.

Sports Arenas

Ian Liddell-Grainger: If she will provide grants to local authorities specifically for sports arenas and multi–use arenas in rural areas.

Richard Caborn: May I crave your indulgence at the start of my response, Mr. Speaker, and ask the House to join me in congratulating the athletes and coaches and rest of the staff of Team GB, including the people in the British Olympic Association, on such a successful and professional performance at the winter Olympics. I know that the whole nation and everybody in the House feel proud of their achievements—the best since 1934. Even "Question Time" was moved so that people could see the curling final.
	All local authorities are eligible to apply to the lottery sports fund for grants for the development of sports facilities, including sports arenas. In administering the fund, Sport England recognises the need to provide sports facilities in rural areas, particularly those that are deprived, and addresses that need through its priority area and sport action zone initiatives.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: Is the Minister aware that Sedgemoor district council, which is not one of the largest in the country, is trying to build a multi-sports arena? The problem is that Sport England has to cover an enormous area of the west country, and has not enough resources. Sedgemoor is not in a position to fund it either, and is therefore looking for external money. As it is a very rural area, has the Minister any other ideas about where it could raise the money?

Richard Caborn: I do not know about that specific scheme, but I do know that in rural areas, about a quarter of the lottery money—about £1.2 billion since 1994—has gone into sports facilities, of which £40 million has gone to rural areas. If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I will consider what he says and speak to the Sport England officials about it.

Tim Yeo: I join the Minister in warmly congratulating the winter Olympics team on its performance in Salt Lake City, which is a cause of celebration for the whole country. However, is he aware that on 13 February 2002 a written answer from him showed that lottery-funded spending on sport had fallen by one third since 1997—a drop of more than £100 million a year? When more than £3 billion in unspent lottery funds is sitting unused, the rejection of proposals, such as that by the university of Hertfordshire to build an olympic swimming pool, is profoundly discouraging for budding sportsmen and sports fans. It also undermines the chances of future British Olympic success.

Richard Caborn: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are dealing with the question of the uncommitted funds—as the hon. Gentleman knows, those funds are allocated—through the lottery distributers. We are having separate meetings with the chief executives and chairs of the distributing bodies to see how we can use the funds more effectively. I remind the hon. Gentleman that during the next two years, the overall Exchequer contribution to sport will more than double. He will know that because of the reduction in participation in the lottery, all lottery funding streams have been reduced. I was speaking to Camelot only last week, and it now hopes that the relaunch will bring the lottery receipts back to what it was envisaged they would be when the licence was applied for.

Wembley Stadium

Sydney Chapman: If she will report progress on the redevelopment proposals for the Wembley stadium site.

Tessa Jowell: I made clear to the House on 19 December 2001 the Government's commitment to support the Football Association's national stadium project, subject to the FA meeting a number of conditions that I set out at the time. The Government fully recognise that—as Patrick Carter made clear in his interim report published on 19 December—the project will not be delivered without Government support. The project is now in a process of due diligence with the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. undertaking the necessary work to fulfil the Government's conditions and working with the lead bank on financing the project. Sport England is progressing the study on athletics in consultation with UK Athletics, the British Olympic Association and the International Association of Athletics Federations. I expect the FA's work to be completed in April.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for that comprehensive reply. On reflection, does she agree that the decision to exclude athletics from a rebuilt Wembley stadium has turned out to be a disastrous misjudgment? Will she confirm beyond any doubt that when the stadium is rebuilt it will have athletics facilities? Does she agree that the delay in coming to a conclusion about the form that the stadium should take means that football will not have been played at Wembley stadium for five years?

Tessa Jowell: The design of the stadium is athletics capable. The FA is now acting on that and Sport England is in the lead. I made it clear in December that there is a difference between being athletics capable and actually being able to host athletics events. The important fact is that money was awarded as part of the lottery grant, which, if the stadium cannot host athletics events, would have to be returned; so in order to complete the negotiations and settle the future of the national stadium project once and for all, discussions are under way. I have made it clear that a condition of finalising the Government's support for the national stadium project is that the position in relation to athletics be clarified. If athletics events are not to be hosted at the stadium, the money—as the FA has always made clear—would be returned. If, however, the stadium is capable of hosting athletics events—because of the improved technology of a more easily dismantled platform—obviously the money would be retained. That is part of ensuring that the project makes progress and that by the end of April we know once and for all whether the national stadium will be built at Wembley.

Gerald Kaufman: Will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that she will not repeat the blunders of her predecessor by getting ensnarled in this such that the Government will not be able to evade responsibility for the culpability of Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and the Football Association? Will she give the House an absolute assurance that not a penny of Government money will go directly or indirectly into subsidising the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. and that the Government will not support any effort by the FA and Wembley National Stadium Ltd. to raise money in the markets? The organisation should do that on its own credit and in no other way. Will she make it clear that, if the stadium does not go ahead by April at the latest, legal action will be taken to recover the £120 million to which the FA is clinging like a leech and which it will have no possible legal right to retain?

Tessa Jowell: A number of my predecessors have concerned themselves with the national stadium project. At various times, each of them took decisions on the basis of the best advice and consideration available to them.
	On my right hon. Friend's second point, there is absolutely no question of any further Government contribution to the financing of the national stadium. As I have made clear and will continue to make clear, the additional Government support is limited to a further sum of up to £20 million to meet infrastructure costs.
	Thirdly, there is no question of the Government bearing any of the risk in relation to the borrowing. The full risk will be borne by the FA.

Tim Yeo: I am afraid that the Secretary of State's answers will have raised more doubts in the minds of most listeners in the past few minutes than she perhaps wished. Anxieties already exist about the progress of this project and the achievement of the timetable in April to which she referred. Will she say categorically whether the Government are still committed to rebuilding Wembley stadium and to incorporating an athletics facility? Will she also say whether she is completely happy with the proposed roles of Multiplex, IMG and the FA in this project? Will she confirm that the infrastructure spending that she mentioned involves the rebuilding, not just the upgrading, of Wembley Park tube station? If she is in doubt about whether that is needed, I invite her to do as I did last Tuesday and pay a visit by tube to Wembley.

Tessa Jowell: The hon. Gentleman's contribution makes it clear why the second world war was won in about the same time that it has taken to achieve no progress at all on Wembley. This project was initiated in 1996 by the last Conservative Government, who began with a catalogue of errors.
	I set out clearly to the House on 19 December the four conditions that the FA had to meet, in the light of the David James report on the procurement of the stadium, in order for Government support to be settled with a further investment of £20 million. That has been clearly established. Brent council gave planning permission to the stadium in 2000 without any precondition requiring an increase in the capacity of Wembley Park tube station. If new conditions are to be introduced by Brent or, rhetorically, by the hon. Gentleman, they should realise that they are once again putting the national stadium project at risk.

Bill Olner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Wembley was very prematurely closed by the FA? Does she also agree that the FA is still prevaricating about a national stadium for one of our most popular games, association football? While prevarication about Wembley continues, there are two excellent sites in the west midlands, at Coventry and at Birmingham, which are less expensive than the Wembley alternative.

Tessa Jowell: In fairness to the FA, there is no prevarication. It is now engaged with the lending banks in the process of due diligence and is proceeding to meet the four conditions that I set out to the House before Christmas. That process will conclude with the signing or not of binding contracts by the end of April. Work is in progress, and my job—and the Government's job—is to provide every possible support to ensure that the national stadium is realised.

Golden Jubilee

Gregory Barker: What progress has been made in the Government's plans to celebrate the golden jubilee in London.

Tessa Jowell: London will be the focus of the national events during the golden jubilee weekend. Full details of the programme have not yet been published, but events will include concerts in the grounds of Buckingham palace; the lighting of the jubilee beacon and a fireworks display; the state procession to St Paul's cathedral for the national service of thanksgiving; a lunch at Guildhall; and a carnival pageant in the Mall.

Gregory Barker: All Conservative Members hope and believe that Her Majesty's golden jubilee will be a great success. I welcome the extensive programme of activities that has been arranged for the jubilee bank holiday weekend, but will she assure us that the main celebrations will be a Cool Britannia-free zone, and that the military bayonets-drawn and breastplate-shining pageantry for which this country is world-renowned, and in which our service men and women excel, will be in pride of place? Can she further assure us that there will be no fewer armed service participants in the parade than there were in the silver jubilee celebrations in 1977? If not, will she lobby her colleagues at the Ministry of Defence to invite Commonwealth troops to come to London and fill the gap?

Tessa Jowell: The Conservatives say one thing and do another. It is not for the Government to tell people how to enjoy themselves during the jubilee; people will decide that for themselves. It is the Government's role, however, to support the palace and the public so that the many ideas and ambitions that communities throughout the country have to celebrate the jubilee can flourish. All the signs are that people are engaging with the prospect of organising jubilee events. For instance, the number of hits on the golden jubilee office website tripled in the past two months, more than 500 beacons are planned and street parties are being organised. Events are being organised despite the best efforts of the Opposition to talk down the jubilee.

Film Production (UK)

Andrew Lansley: What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of grants made by the Film Council in increasing UK-based film production.

Kim Howells: The Film Council has been awarding lottery funds for only a relatively short time but it has already produced a notable success in "Gosford Park", which received a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award last night after being released to critical acclaim. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that the main criterion is not the number of films that are backed, but that those that are supported are of a much higher quality and reach an appreciative audience.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I enjoyed seeing "Gosford Park" and wish it well in the, I think, five Oscar nominations that it received. Does the Minister agree, however, that there is no evidence of an increase in the number of UK-based productions as a result of the Film Council's support? Does he also agree that the training fund and the development of scripts in the UK is one of the best long-term investments and possibly the most cost- effective way to secure not only UK productions, but United States investment in UK productions, which of course makes up the largest part of our film production?

Kim Howells: Yes, I agree entirely. The basis of all good films is a good script. Support for scriptwriters to develop films in that way has been sadly lacking. That is why we have made money available to develop scripts.

James Purnell: Does the Minister agree that as well as supporting the commercial infrastructure, it is important that the Film Council supports the more risk-taking innovative cultural films that are part of its mandate? Will he do everything that he can to encourage it to put money not merely into developing those films for production, but into ensuring that they are distributed as well?

Kim Howells: It is not easy to get such films distributed, and that is one of the main tasks that the Film Council faces. We do not have production companies like we used to have; nor do we have the integrated organisations that Hollywood has, not only to make films but to ensure that films are properly distributed, which has always been a great weakness.
	My hon. Friend puts his finger on an important weakness in the British system. Banks and other financial agencies are unwilling to realise that films are a good investment, although they are willing to put their money into far riskier investments. Witness, for example, the dot.com crashes and problems with bonds—ventures that the banks were eager to pour their money into. They do not invest in films in the same way, which is a great shame.

Michael Fabricant: I am glad that the Minister shares my concern about lack of British investment in what are essentially British films. He will be aware that "Gosford Park", which I saw last night, was essentially an American production and that "The Lord of the Rings", which starred British people, sadly had to be shot in New Zealand and was also funded by the United States of America. What steps can the Government and the Department take to ensure tax breaks to enable people to invest in the United Kingdom in British films, to promote not only the British film industry but the generation of money to be ploughed back into the industry, creating an ever-increasing growth of British films in both the UK and worldwide?

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman makes a good case for investing in British films. We have great actors and scriptwriters and very good directors. A large amount of Film Council money was put into "Gosford Park", and he should not underrate that. Very often, such seedcorn money can be used to develop a good idea and attract capital. After all, film draws its investment funding from all over the world, whether the films are made in this country, New Zealand or anywhere else. This is a great country in which to make films. We have some of the best post-production facilities anywhere in the world and, as I say, some of the best actors, scriptwriters and directors. I urge everybody on both sides of the House to talk up the British film industry, not to talk it down or to try to smear its good name.

Tim Yeo: Does the Minister believe that the process by which projects are selected for cash help by the Film Council is entirely objective? Does he think it right that a very high proportion of the lottery money distributed by the Film Council goes to projects in which the directors of the Film Council have an interest? Will he confirm that several of the Film Council directors whose projects have been helped in that way have also been appointed to advise Ministers about film policy?

Kim Howells: I was expecting that question from the hon. Gentleman because I had heard that he had visited the Film Council, where I understand that he was as nice as pie to everyone. He did not tell them that he would be dragging the good name of British film through his manufactured mud. All the mechanisms are in place to ensure objectivity when it comes to deciding which projects should get the money that the Film Council is there to distribute.
	It is a great shame that BAFTA did not have an award for the hon. Gentleman last night. The trouble is, of course, that it could not have presented one of those faces; it would have had to have presented a two-faced award.

Theatres (London)

Neil Gerrard: What action she is taking to support the development of theatre with specific reference to London theatres outside the west end.

Tessa Jowell: This is a matter for London Arts. Following the 2000–01 theatre review, London Arts' annual support for the independent theatre sector in London will rise to more than £15 million by 2003–04, which represents an increase of 88 per cent. over last year's figure.

Neil Gerrard: My right hon. Friend obviously recognises the work of London theatres outside the west end, such as the Theatre Royal, Stratford East, which is based in Newham and serves a lot of east London, but does she agree that such theatres, which aim to do innovative work and to develop new productions, must take greater risks, and greater financial risks, than those that rely purely on touring productions and revivals, and that that is not always sufficiently recognised by the current funding systems? Will she consider what specifically can be done to help producer theatres?

Tessa Jowell: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes, we recognise that producer theatres take greater risks and yes, we want to support them in doing that. That is precisely why an additional £25 million per year will be available from 2003–04. That is a fund of money from which Stratford East will rightly benefit, and it will benefit theatre throughout the country in pursuing the important objectives that he outlines: innovation, promoting excellence and risk taking.

Amateur Sports Clubs

Lindsay Hoyle: What measures she will take to assist amateur sports clubs through tax allowances.

Richard Caborn: Proposals for easing the financial burdens on clubs were included in the consultation paper "Promoting Sport in the Community", published in November 2001. As well as setting out a possible tax exemption regime, the paper included revised Charity Commission guidance which should allow many clubs to take advantage of the tax and other benefits of charitable status. That consultation ended on 1 February and the Treasury is reflecting on the responses.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I am sure that he is aware that the Treasury may need some assistance. I hope he will use his good offices to work with the Treasury to ensure that that relief is given to the amateur sporting clubs which are home to the country's future stars.

Richard Caborn: I will use my good offices. A tax working party has been set up, with representatives from the Central Council of Physical Recreation, my Department and the Treasury. If charitable status was granted to more amateur clubs, they would benefit from exemption from inheritance tax, reclaiming basic rate tax on monetary gifts from gift aid—a very important institution—and payroll giving, in addition to mandatory rate relief. There are many other advantages in achieving charitable status. To that end, on 12 February I met the Chief Commissioner of the Charity Commission, John Stoker, to see whether we could work out a formula that would allow more amateur clubs to have charitable status.

Nick Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the one and a half million volunteers who are the backbone of amateur sports clubs up and down the country are spending a disproportionate amount of time raising the funds for those clubs to pay their tax bills? Can it be right that they should have to do that when they should be organising sports? Is he aware that giving the mandatory 80 per cent. rate relief would cost only £28 million? He talks about the Charity Commission and about making these clubs charities. Are sports club really charities, or will it become a bureaucratic nightmare? Can he grant the clubs what they want, which is parity with charity, but not the bureaucracy that goes with it?

Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is why I am talking with the CCPR and Sport England about a regional structure that will allow sports an easy passage and a less bureaucratic way of achieving charitable status. If charitable status had been offered two or three years ago, it would have been accepted. It is my intention to ensure that where charitable status is offered to small clubs, they are given as much assistance as possible. John Stoker and I agree that this needs to be looked at, and I hope that we bring amateur clubs nearer to that position than they are at present.

Chris Bryant: I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend has said. At a time when diabetes is recognised as a problem among young children, does he agree that it is ever more important to ensure that increasing numbers of young people take part in sport? However, that will be impossible, especially in poor areas such as my constituency, where many people find it difficult to make ends meet, let alone find additional funding for rugby boots or sports equipment, which is why it is so important to make sure that organisations such as the Rhondda Rebels or the Ferndale rugby football club attract support.
	Does my right hon. Friend also agree that if we are to make progress in providing charitable status for amateur sporting clubs, it is not helpful when local authorities such as Rhondda Cynon Taff, which is run by the nationalists, increase the amount of money that clubs have to pay just to play on the football pitches?

Richard Caborn: I cannot comment on my hon. Friend's last point, as I do not know about that particular local authority. On the wider issues of sport and health, however, he is absolutely right. The National Audit Office report that came out only a few weeks ago showed that obesity in this country costs the economy something like £2 billion and that the financial burden on the health service is about half a billion pounds. A cost-benefit analysis would clearly show that investment into sport would address health and education issues. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it a point in the last Budget statement about looking at bringing financial relief and support to amateur clubs and volunteers up and down the country. They do a sterling job and without them, the sports infrastructure would not exist.

Bob Spink: Does the Minister agree that amateur sports clubs are important to the very fabric of our society? Will he come to Castle Point and join me in a visit to Benfleet cricket club? It is one of many amateur sports clubs around the country that are suffering at the hands of councils that, under best value, are doubling, trebling or quadrupling ground rents and other charges. Those charges are putting such clubs at risk, and it would be a great shame if we threw the baby out with the bath water in that regard.

Richard Caborn: If the previous Administration had done a little more for amateur clubs, we would probably not be in this position, but I should make it clear that we will do something about the cricket club to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If we can secure charitable status and the type of tax regime to which I have referred, that club will probably be much better off than it was under his party's administration.

Arts (North-east Essex)

Ivan Henderson: What steps the Government are taking to support regional theatres and arts organisations within north-east Essex.

Kim Howells: That is a matter for East England Arts, as the regional body for north-east Essex. By 2003–04, East England Arts' budget, including the regional arts lottery programme, will rise to £12.4 million. That is an increase of 18 per cent. on its current level.

Ivan Henderson: I welcome the Minister's comments and I note the level of Government investment in the Mercury theatre in Colchester, to which many of my constituents enjoy going. However, what support have the Government given to theatres in seaside resorts? Clacton-on-sea has two such theatres: the West Cliff theatre, which is run by the West Cliff theatre trust—a volunteer group that does an excellent job—and the Prince's theatre, the budget for which the local, Tory-led authority has just cut. What support and encouragement will the Minister give to such theatres, which play a major part in the tourism and leisure industry in seaside resorts?

Kim Howells: I think that an 18 per cent. rise in East England Arts' budget should guarantee the future of perfectly good theatres such as those. If it does not, that will smack of the usual incompetence and heartlessness of Tory-led local authorities.

Bob Russell: I advise the Minister that the cultural capital of Essex appreciates all the support for live theatre in Britain's oldest recorded town. Will he join me in welcoming the imminent opening in Colchester of the Headgate theatre, an amateur theatre that will occupy the premises previously occupied by a failed Labour club?

Kim Howells: I bet there were some great actors there, as well.

Community Sport (North-west)

Andrew Miller: What plans she has to assist the development of sport at community level in the north-west.

Richard Caborn: The Government are committed to increasing opportunities for participation in sport in every part of the country. The strategy for sport—"A Sporting Future for All"—and the Government's plan for sport set out an action plan on how we intend to achieve those objectives. We also plan to restructure Sport England to improve the delivery of sport at the regional level.

Andrew Miller: My right hon. Friend will know that, despite the latent talent that exists in the north-west, we face an acute shortage of decent facilities for many of our young people. Will he look carefully at projects such as that proposed for Stanney high school—a partnership involving education, the single regeneration budget, West Cheshire amateur athletics club and the private sector—which will provide a new, purpose-built athletics track? Such partnerships, making best use of the money available, are surely the way forward in helping our young people.

Richard Caborn: I could not agree more. Indeed, as my hon. Friend knows, the project at Stanney high school has been given stage 1 approval by the Sport England lottery panel, and work is moving ahead. Sport England believes that that project is important; it is working with the partners to which my hon. Friend referred to try to make sure that the plan is realised, as it will be a major asset to that part of the north-west.

Graham Brady: The Minister will be aware of concern across Greater Manchester and Cheshire about the proposed closure of the ice rink in Altrincham. Will he take a personal interest in what might be done to ensure that funds are made available for a replacement regional facility somewhere in Greater Manchester or Cheshire, which is important for ice skating, ice hockey and other sports?

Hon. Members: Including curling.

Richard Caborn: I think that the hon. Gentleman could have mentioned curling; I gather that 6 million people up and down the country now want curling lanes, which is to be welcomed.
	I do not know all the details of the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but if he writes to me I will make sure that it is looked into. However, I can assure him that as a result of our investment in the Commonwealth games, Manchester and the north-west are regarded as a priority for sports facilities; indeed, a tremendous legacy will be left after we have had a successful games later this year.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Investments

Andrew Lansley: What the impact on their investment returns of their investment in (a) property and (b) equities has been, in the last five years.

Stuart Bell: Over the five years from 1996 to 2000, the commissioners' UK equities portfolio achieved a return of 17.2 per cent. per annum. Their overseas equities achieved 15 per cent. per annum, and the commissioners' commercial, residential and agricultural property holdings contributed to the outperformance, achieving returns of 15.1 per cent., 28.4 per cent. and 10.9 per cent. per annum respectively over the five years.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. In assessing the return on equities to the Church Commissioners, can he tell the House what is the loss resulting from the Government's change to advance corporation tax in the first Budget after the 1997 general election? How does it compare with the cash value of any reductions in the obligations which the Church Commissioners are taking on in the years ahead and transferring to the dioceses?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. I should add that the total return from our stock exchange and property investments over the five-year period was 15.9 per cent. As for the advance corporation tax, matters relating to it were discussed with the actuary. I am happy to make a study for the hon. Gentleman and let him have a copy.

Robert Key: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious upset in the dioceses, especially the large rural ones, that any reduction, however small, in the support that the Church Commissioners can give the dioceses is passed straight on to the parishes, which not only have the burden of maintaining the fabric of ancient parish churches, but are now faced with the distinct possibility of not being able to afford a priest?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should know that our legal duties are numerous; our commitments are to clergy and bishops, both in cathedrals and areas of need. We have a policy on areas of need and opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman has a particular case in mind, I should be glad to look at it and give him a response.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Compulsory Voting

Gareth Thomas: If the Electoral Commission will review compulsory voting in parliamentary elections.

Alan Beith: I understand from the chairman of the Electoral Commission that it believes that there is merit in opening up the question of compulsory voting for wider debate and that it should be examined in more detail as one of a series of options that may help to contribute to higher rates of participation in elections.

Gareth Thomas: I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his response. Does he recognise that compulsory voting works perfectly well in Australia, Belgium and many other countries? Is it not time to recognise that compulsory voting, albeit with the opportunity to register an abstention, would not put an onerous burden on our citizens, as some would have us believe?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman must not infer from my reply any enthusiasm on my part for compulsory voting. The commission has decided, as the Select Committee on Home Affairs recommended, to open the matter up for debate, in which the hon. Gentleman has already participated extensively. One of the first steps is to look at the operation of compulsory voting in other countries.

Paul Goodman: Is it not fundamental in a free society that people should not be forced to the polling booths if they do not want to vote?

Alan Beith: That is a view which a number of us hold, and I am sure that it will be one of the views that the Commission considers. In the end, of course, it would be a matter for legislation if compulsory voting were introduced.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Housing (Retired Clergy)

Lindsay Hoyle: If the Church Commissioners will take measures to assist retired clergy with housing provision.

Stuart Bell: The Church Commissioners already do so. Housing in retirement is the responsibility of individual clergy, and the level of pension allows for that, but it is the Church Commissioners who provide most of the capital for the Church's scheme of housing assistance for retired clergy, which aims to widen the choice available to them.

Lindsay Hoyle: That is an interesting answer. Is my hon. Friend aware of the plight of someone who comes late into the clergy, does not build up a pension fund and does not get assistance? Local authorities have to help with accommodation for retired clergy. I do not think that that is the right way forward. There ought to be a rethink by the Church Commissioners, and more assistance ought to be given.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He ought to know that clergy stipends and housing for retired clergy are very much on the mind of the Church. Wide-ranging recommendations were made in a report on clergy remuneration, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. Those were considered by the General Synod in November 2001 and are now with the dioceses for further discussion. The comments made by my hon. Friend today will be sent to the appropriate quarter and will become part of the consultation process.

Simon Hughes: I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle). Will the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) ask his friends the Church Commissioners to consider how they could use their funds to assist clergy who need help with housing after retirement, and also lay people who are paid by the Church and who often find themselves in similar difficulties when they come to the end of their careers? If the Church Commissioners assessed the position nationally, they could make a positive decision about whether they could help, and that would be very welcome.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He widens the question somewhat to include those who are lay persons within the Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is a study going on which will be read by the General Synod. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it should be widened to cover the persons to whom he referred will also be considered.

Peter Pike: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of the retired clergy play an ever-increasing role in enabling the Church to provide services on Sunday and cover for absences for various reasons? Is it not therefore important that we ensure that wherever possible, instead of having to move to different areas, they can continue to live in the area that they know well and which they may have served well for a number of years?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the work that many retired clergy do after their retirement. The recommendations to which I referred include the one that there ought to be the possibility of providing capital to help clergy with the cost of a deposit payment on the purchase of a house, which they could let before retirement and later occupy themselves. If such a recommendation were accepted, they could live in the community, probably better. I should say, however, that by that response I have not in any way committed the Church Commissioners.

Church Maintenance

Bob Spink: If he will make a statement on the programme of church maintenance and improvement.

Stuart Bell: Programmes of maintenance and improvement to Church of England churches are matters for individual parochial church councils.

Bob Spink: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree that we owe it to future generations to maintain our historic and beautiful churches and, if possible, to improve the facilities, such as toilets, in those churches? Could not the Church Commissioners devise a scheme for the future to provide help with maintenance and improvements?

Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman is of course aware of the listed places of worship grant scheme recently launched by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which allows listed churches to apply for a grant equivalent to a reduction in VAT to 5 per cent. That was a measure introduced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year. It has been acted upon and I am hopeful that it will address the kind of situation to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

John Cryer: Is my hon. Friend aware that many churches in my constituency have needed a great deal of work and maintenance in the past and will do so in the future, especially St. Nicholas church in Elm Park, which had the roof burned off? The rate of VAT that he mentioned has obviously had implications. Is there any chance of further action on that, or a wider scheme to institute church repairs on a national basis, which would help the churches in my area?

Stuart Bell: My hon. Friend should be aware that in addition to the listed places of worship grant scheme, English Heritage and the heritage lottery fund have each contributed grant aid of about £10 million per annum. Clearly that and the relief of VAT on church affairs are not sufficient, but the Church of England, along with other faiths, is continuing to work on this problem. I hope that we will even make some progress within the European Union.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked—

Sharman Report

David Rendel: What proposals he has to request an increase in the budget of the National Audit Office to take account of the recommendations of the Sharman report.

Alan Williams: The extent of any increase in the budget of the National Audit Office to take account of the Sharman report will depend on the Government's response to the recommendations. It is now 12 months since Lord Sharman reported. I understand that the Government have been in extensive discussions with the NAO about the practical arrangements that the Government believe are needed to accompany Lord Sharman's recommendations. Any cost implications will be reflected in the annual corporate plan that will be submitted by the Comptroller and Auditor General in the summer. The Commission will consider that report before the summer recess.

David Rendel: Does the Chairman agree with me that 12 months is an intolerably long time to wait for these recommendations to be put into place? They should have been put into place before now. What assurances does the right hon. Gentleman have that they will be put into place in the near future?

Alan Williams: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that 12 months seems to be an abnormally long time. We must hope that it is justified by a favourable reception. If it is, we would want that accompanied by a guarantee of early implementation.

Edward Leigh: Does the Chairman agree that it is vital that the Government accept all the recommendations of the Sharman report? In particular, it is important that we make progress to ensure that the BBC comes under full audit by the House. After all, the BBC effectively imposes a poll tax on virtually every member of the population. The House should have the right to hold the BBC to account.

Alan Williams: I agree with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. There are many extremely important elements in the Sharman report, which would extend considerably Parliament's power of scrutiny. We want full implementation and early implementation. I hope that we may get a response from the Government in March.

Yarl's Wood Fire

David Blunkett: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the fire at Yarl's Wood removal centre.
	Before setting out what happened on the night of Thursday 14 February, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I am not prepared to let Government policy be determined by those intent on creating disorder and destruction. Having removed asylum seekers from prison, we now find that our reward is the burning down of a substantial part of the facility. This is deplorable.
	The new nationality, immigration and asylum policy, which I set out on 7 February, remains unchanged. In particular, I intend to press ahead with expanding the number of places in secure removal centres to 4,000. There will be no uncertainty and no misunderstanding. We will implement our comprehensive policy as set out to the House on 7 February.
	I shall set out the facts as we know them. The unrest, involving a number of detainees, started on the evening of 14 February. At that stage the sequence of events is not entirely clear. However, it has been established that during the disturbance control of the centre was wrested from the staff, allowing detainees to gain keys providing access to restricted areas, including a property store. At the same time, damage was being caused inside the centre, including to the operation of CCTV. The detention contractors, Group 4, faced with substantial disorder, called for assistance from public services.
	A number of detainees moved outside the accommodation blocks and a smaller number of these breached the perimeter security round the site. The earliest police units to arrive worked to restore perimeter security, and a number of detainees were apprehended at this stage. Further detainees were taken into custody later in the night in the Bedford area. Our latest estimate is that 22 remain at large.
	An initial fire in the reception area was extinguished, but fires were started in separate blocks and in more than one location. The fire service was unable to tackle these blazes because detainees prevented it from gaining access to the buildings. By the time order had been restored on the compound, the fire had taken significant hold in one part of the centre and it proved impossible to save those buildings. I am pleased to tell the House that despite speculation to the contrary, we do not believe that there were any fatalities. However, I have authorised continuing investigation to be undertaken until we are absolutely certain that that is correct. I should tell the House that we still have dogs inside the site this afternoon.
	In the appalling circumstances of that evening, the men and women of the Bedfordshire police and fire service acquitted themselves with dedication and courage. So too did members of the Prison Service and the Yarl's Wood operators. I know that the whole House will want to express its gratitude to them.
	Since the events of 14 February, I have taken a number of immediate steps to strengthen security and protection in the service. First, I have sought advice from the chief inspector of fire services on safety at Yarl's Wood and other removal centres. Subject to immediate remedial action, the undamaged sections at Yarl's Wood have been declared safe. I therefore intend to continue their use. Similar advice has been given in respect of Harmondsworth, and other removal centres are also being assessed. Secondly, as a further precaution, detainees with a history of violent or criminal behaviour and those considered a danger to safety have been transferred to prison. Detailed contingency plans have been put in place should further disorder arise, and I have given direct instructions to improve both staffing and security.
	Bedfordshire police and fire rescue services have begun investigations into the events of that night—they will take some weeks to complete—and Group 4 has instituted an internal investigation. I have also initiated a Home Office overarching investigation to inquire into the causes of the events and draw together the other reports, which will include recommendations on design and future fire and security measures. The investigation will, of course, be conducted in a manner that does not impede any criminal investigation. It will be headed by Stephen Moore, a senior and experienced Prison Service official. I would encourage hon. Members to make any observations directly to that inquiry.
	I know that the House would want me to deal with the issue of the absence of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood. The decision not to fit sprinklers was informed by advice from a number of different expert sources. Sprinklers have not been used in other similar establishments, owing to operational and practical issues associated with managing sprinkler systems in such an environment. Nevertheless, a review into their use was already ongoing.
	The review and recent events have led me to believe that increased precautionary measures are necessary. I have therefore taken a preliminary decision to install sprinklers in all new removal centres and will take the necessary steps to install them at Yarl's Wood, as well as Harmondsworth and other facilities.
	It is now clear that a small number of people will take any step to prevent their removal from this country. We therefore have no option but to toughen the regime and instruct the immigration and nationality directorate further to speed up removal of those in the centres to their country of origin.
	It would be unthinkable to allow violent and disruptive behaviour to put the safety of staff, other detainees or the public at risk. I shall also consider the criteria for allocating particular individuals to specific removal centres. That will entail considering different levels of security appropriate to the individuals who are held.
	Although I take my obligations under the 1951 convention seriously, many claimants fail to meet the standards required. Those with no right to remain must be removed if our overall policy is to stand any chance of success. I therefore reiterate my determination to provide a coherent and seamless process in which rapid removal, and thereby prevention of absconding, must play an essential part.
	The lessons of 14 February will be learned, but the message must also be clear. No one will be permitted to engage in behaviour that puts lives at risk and destroys first-class facilities, built at public expense and created as an alternative to prison. That is the message that I intend to convey this afternoon. I know that the House will back that stance.

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for early notification of his statement. The event that we are considering is exceptionally serious, and the House's sympathy goes to those who were injured and to local residents who may be living in fear.
	The event has an unhappy background. It occurred in a recess during which an appalling rise in street crime was announced and the Home Secretary's relationship with the police at all levels virtually collapsed.
	I have repeatedly made it clear that I agree with the Home Secretary about the need for an asylum regime that is much more effective than the system that his predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary, bequeathed him. However, the disaster at Yarl's Wood raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of the new strategy.
	The new strategy contains three critical elements: reception centres, accommodation centres and removal centres. However, we must ask whether removal centres are being managed in a way that will make sense of the rest of the process. Questions fall into three straightforward categories: why, who and when?
	Why were there no sprinklers? In the light of Lord Rooker's comment that their absence was extraordinary, and warnings by Labour Members 15 months ago, which experts, to whom the Home Secretary referred, disagreed with the Bedfordshire fire service? Why was there so little co-ordination with the police? Is it true that they had no immediate access when they arrived? Given the new tightening of security, which we welcome, why did the Home Secretary not authorise further tightening? Why did a break-out occur at Harmondsworth? Why was no heed paid to anxieties that my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) and unions raised about pressures and tensions in Yarl's Wood? Why was there no adequate response to rioting in Yarl's Wood?
	Let us consider the "who" questions. Who was in Yarl's Wood? Were repeated reassurances to the local populace that everyone there was low risk correct? How many had exhausted the appeals process and were due to be removed? How many were still engaged in the appeals process? Were legal advisers and other facilities available for the latter? How many of those who remain at large were due for removal and how many were engaged in the appeals process? What are the Home Secretary's intentions for those who are apprehended?
	Let us examine the "when" questions. How long was it taking to remove those who were due for removal from Yarl's Wood? Were there any whom it took more than a few days to remove once the appeals process had been exhausted? Was the local population misled about the average length of time people would stay? What was about to be done to enable an institution that turns out to be incapable of dealing appropriately with 380 inhabitants to deal appropriately with its full capacity of 900? Is the Home Secretary's policy of building a small number of large centres still the right one? When will Yarl's Wood be operational again? Has the Home Secretary now revised his target of 30,000 removals a year? If not, how is he going to achieve it with Yarl's Wood non-operational or partly non-operational?
	Perhaps the Home Secretary—who is amazingly good at this task—will answer some of those questions today in the House. I cannot see, however, how even he can possibly be expected to answer them all in full today. It seems clear that only a proper, comprehensive, public inquiry can be expected to provide the answers that can teach us the comprehensive lessons that we will need to learn if there is to be any realistic chance of putting back together the pieces of the Home Secretary's removal policy. Will he now assure the House that he will hold such an inquiry without delay?

David Blunkett: First of all, I shall entirely ignore the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, which were not worthy of him. We all know that, when we are taking difficult decisions in difficult circumstances, people will be aggravated about them. That has nothing to do with the issue that we are dealing with this afternoon. It is also important, in addressing the hon. Gentleman's perfectly reasonable questions, that we should be aware that the Conservatives' previous policy was that all asylum seekers would be held in centres similar to Yarl's Wood. I am glad that they have now abandoned that policy, because it was never viable or practical. I have said—I am prepared to acknowledge it again this afternoon—that holding people outside prison in secure circumstances is a difficult task, but a necessary one if we are to have any semblance of a removals policy.
	The hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions about who was there. I have said that there needs to be a review of the way in which those who are put into centres are assessed in terms of their suitability for the particular centre. I implicitly acknowledge, therefore, that some people who are violent should remain in prison rather than in a removal centre. Some people who are still going through the fast-track appeals process should be placed separately from those about to be removed from country; and when we are about to remove people from the country—I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's question on this point—it should be done very speedily indeed, to minimise the organisational capacity of those who wish to create havoc and to minimise the difficulty for those with children.
	The hon. Gentleman's "when" questions will form part of the review that will be undertaken, but I acknowledge with hindsight that if people had been able to act more speedily and access had been more readily available—even though the detainees were responsible for preventing access—the fire could have been minimised. That is self-evident. It is also self-evident, however, that to blame the police, the fire service or the operators for what was started by detainees would be to blame those trying to get a grip on the situation rather than those who caused it.
	I also want to acknowledge—in relation to the "who" and the "when" and the "why" questions—that local people's interests need to be safeguarded, and that when statements are made to reassure them, they are honest, open and transparent. It is my intention to go to Yarl's Wood in the next month with the local Members of Parliament who have an interest in this issue, to talk to local people, to get feedback from them and to ensure that reassurances that are given are fulfilled.
	I say again that, if we are to learn the lessons and do the job well, we need to ensure that the inquiries that have been started can be properly co-ordinated. The reason I am not establishing a long-term public inquiry is that many of the facts can be quickly and easily ascertained. The need for greater security can and will be acknowledged by me. The staffing improvements which had already been set in train not just at Yarl's Wood but at Harmondsworth by the operators, UK Detention Services, have now been put in place. Given that Yarl's Wood opened only in November and that we were piloting the way in which it operated, it is a tragedy of the first order that this incident should happen within three months of that opening.
	With hindsight, I fully acknowledge that some of those issues might have been resolved, but I want to make one other point clear. Those who try to remove their own responsibility, including insurers and underwriters, do no one a service by passing the buck—in this case to the public purse—for the liability. They were happy enough to carry it when making a profit, but are not happy to do so when making a loss.

Diane Abbott: The fire at Yarl's Wood endangered the lives of hundreds of people, including hundreds of innocent detainees. The Home Secretary refers to hindsight, but the question of sprinklers is not one of hindsight. The relevant fire authorities advised at the time that sprinklers should be installed at such a facility. He says that it will be relatively easy to ascertain the facts of that issue. Can he tell the House whose advice the authorities took over and above that of the fire service in not installing sprinklers?

David Blunkett: The Minister responsible took advice not only internally, but from a number of fire services, given the different locations of the centres. There was conflicting advice from different fire services about the likelihood of such an outbreak. Again with hindsight, and given the particular fabrics of Yarl's Wood—this is true of Harmondsworth, but not of other centres, which are built on a different model and do not rely on wood—I believe that my predecessors would have installed sprinklers. That is what I am intent on doing, but no individual placed in such circumstances—outside prison in centres built to provide not prison conditions, but comfortable living conditions—is in any way exonerated from choosing to burn it down.

Simon Hughes: I join the Home Secretary in condemning the criminal activity that occurred in the centre and thanking and paying tribute to the public servants, particularly the fire and police services, who came to do their work immediately, without thought for their own safety.
	On the events of 14 February specifically, has the Home Secretary decided the terms of reference of the inquiry that he has announced? If so, will he publish them? May I urge on him what I accept is a halfway house between his proposals and those of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)—an inquiry chaired or led by somebody independent of the Prison Service that does not necessarily take as much time as a full-scale public inquiry, for reasons that I entirely understand, would take?
	In that context, I follow the question of the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): will the Home Secretary publish as soon as possible all the advice and correspondence on sprinklers? That clearly ought to be in the public domain. Will he ensure that the terms of reference include the reasons for and the allegations about the delayed entry of the fire and police services, and the allegations about handcuffing and detention before any fire broke out in the centre?
	In relation to individuals, the Home Secretary has rightly said that he cannot yet give the House a final indication of whether there have been any fatalities. What is he being told as to when the police and fire services expect to be able to reach a final decision on whether anybody has lost their life?
	Were the only records of who was in Yarl's Wood kept in Yarl's Wood? If so, will the Home Secretary give the House an undertaking that, although institutions may hold their own records, from today onwards there will be a centrally held record for every single reception, detention and removal centre and prison, so that people know from day to day who is in those places? If nobody outside knew who was there, that is scandalous.
	The Home Secretary said that he wanted to review allocation between centres, and I agree that that seems to be necessary. Can it be made clear that those who are returned to prison will be only those with either a criminal conviction or something else that justifies their imprisonment? Will the Home Secretary also tell us how many people he has decided should go back to prison?
	Does the Home Secretary accept that there is a clear psychological difference between those who are in the process of putting their case, and are therefore far less likely to prove troublesome and try to find ways of escaping, and those who have already had their last opportunity to appeal? If any categories are to be separated, it should be those. In that context, will the Home Secretary review his decision—it is the only decision that I ask him to go back on—to remove the right to an automatic bail application? People who know that their cases will be reviewed regularly are much less likely to cause trouble in the system.
	I stand to be corrected, but I gather that Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons now has authority to inspect detention and removal centres. Will the Home Secretary ask the inspector, as a matter of priority, to authorise an inspection of the whole detention and removal estate, and also to give advice on the way in which such inspections will be planned and carried out in future?

David Blunkett: The inspector is independent, and will undoubtedly undertake that task with the vigour that she has demonstrated since taking over last year.
	It is not true that the only records that existed were in Yarl's Wood. It is true, however, that the records are held on paper and not computerised. That is why it took a few days to ascertain their coherence in terms of what was known at Yarl's Wood itself. Investment is needed to update the information held and exchanged in the immigration and nationality directorate.
	I am prepared to publish the criteria for the reviews. I am prepared to consider allowing an independent member to work with Stephen Moore, who does not have responsibility for or run the immigration and nationality directorate estate but is from the Prison Service. I am not prepared to publish private advice and material given to my predecessors, any more than any other Minister has been or would be; but I am prepared to ensure that Members are updated regularly on what we are doing and on how quickly we can secure the necessary protection.
	Only those who warrant being in prison will be transferred to prison accommodation. So far, 25 of those who sought to abscond have been removed to prison. I have already acknowledged that those who are still at the appeal stage should be considered differently from those who have been demonstrably willing to abscond, and who therefore find themselves in secure removal centres.
	That, I think, answers a great many of the hon. Gentleman's questions, but I will write to him, and to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), about the questions with which I have not dealt.

Alistair Burt: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making a statement to the House at the earliest opportunity. Let me associate North-East Bedfordshire with his thanks to all who put their lives at risk in dealing with the criminal, deplorable and potentially lethal incident the other week, including my constituents who work at Yarl's Wood.
	In view of what the Home Secretary said about insurance, is he not startled by the fact that the firm of loss adjusters Capita McLaren, acting for the insurance syndicate D.J. Pye, has been able to express its thanks to Bedfordshire police by announcing its intention to proceed against them to the tune of £43 million? Surely those who have had a facility like Yarl's Wood imposed on them with no opportunity to object should not run the further risk of having most of their police budget stripped away the following year? Will the Home Secretary go further than he did a moment ago, and condemn that sharp practice as deeply offensive? Will he ensure that it will not succeed in bankrupting Bedfordshire police or council tax payers?
	Will the Home Secretary reconsider the timing of his visit to North-East Bedfordshire? Could he visit as soon as possible, in order to meet constituents who, through the Yarl's Wood liaison committee, worked hard and openly with the Home Office and Group 4 to ensure the success of Yarl's Wood? They had to endure the disruption caused by the building of the facility in a rural area, and they now feel rather slapped in the face by a situation which, it turns out, they predicted rather more accurately and confidently than those whose salaries they pay so that they can advise the nation.

David Blunkett: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he dealt with and handled the situation before the events of 14 February and the way in which he has done so since. I will try to come to the area as quickly as possible. I take entirely his last point about drawing on the wisdom, knowledge and intelligence of those at local level and heeding it more closely.
	I thought that I had gone quite a long way in relation to the insurers and their underwriters. All I can say is that I share entirely the hon. Gentleman's views about protecting the police and those whom they serve from the impact. Like him, I was astonished.

Patrick Hall: I thank my right hon. Friend for the measured and positive attitude that he is adopting today and for his robust support for the excellent work of Bedfordshire police and fire services, which acted superbly under extremely difficult circumstances. It is important that we all adopt a measured and positive approach, because there is much anger, disbelief and concern across the country, including in the Bedford area, and because some people may have lost their lives—although I am delighted to hear that that is unlikely.
	That brings me to the question of sprinklers, which is a serious concern. My right hon. Friend will be aware that I wrote to the Home Office a year ago asking that sprinklers be installed at Yarl's Wood. He will know that the reply acknowledged the importance of the issue but said that it would be decided only following the outcome of the review of fire safety protocols across the detention and prison estate.
	May I ask my right hon. Friend to think again with regard to releasing the review documents? I would like the opportunity to see the experts' reasoned justification that led to the conclusion that sprinklers should not be installed. It is important that these matters be out in the open so that we can learn. That does not detract from his welcome and commonsense announcement regarding the installation of sprinklers as soon as possible at Yarl's Wood.
	I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement that he will come to Bedfordshire to meet local people who have legitimate concerns about Yarl's Wood and indeed about the implementation of the Government's detention policy. I have also called for a public inquiry at the appropriate time so that all these matters can be examined in depth and public confidence can be restored.

David Blunkett: I thank my hon. Friend for his questions and the way in which he has dealt with the situation since 14 February. I make it clear that restoring public confidence, particularly in the locality, is a priority—hence the wish to come to talk to local people and to ensure that we provide not just verbal reassurance, but visible reassurance of the changes and improvements that have been made and the lessons that have been learned.
	I believe that the review that was initiated in spring last year—of fire safety and the role of sprinklers—should inform the overarching inquiry, and that we should publish the inquiry so that people can see the determination and the facts as they have been laid out. I would like to see how we can draw those various elements together before determining the form in which that should be done.

Brian Mawhinney: Does the Home Secretary accept that the preface to his statement has got to be right and commands support on both sides of the House? He referred to being in touch with the immigration and nationality directorate to speed up the process.
	He will know that most people think that those processes take far too long and that lawyers do well out of them, but virtually nobody else does. What specific steps does he intend to take to speed the process up, bearing in mind the fact that the longer people are in the process and are detained, the more likely it is that there will be more disorder, regrettable though that would be?

David Blunkett: Despite the fact that the process here is speedier than that in most other parts of Europe, I agree that most people expect it to be faster than it is at the moment. The comprehensive programme laid out in the White Paper three weeks ago is intended to make a contribution in that respect. The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the speed of operation within the removal centres, and again, that comes down to the avoidance not only of prevarication with administration and bureaucracy but of legal prevarication, which is why I doubt whether not the entitlement to claim bail, but the automatic right of lawyers to intervene at every stage, even when removal has been determined and appeals have been turned down, is right. We are bedevilled by a process that, although it is transparent, fair and open, allows someone to make money at every stage out of preventing this country from removing from its borders those who are not entitled to be here.

Kelvin Hopkins: First, I add my support to that of my fellow Bedfordshire Members for the police and fire services of Bedfordshire—I hold them in the highest regard—but my question is about sprinklers. It is an irony, or possibly a coincidence, that about three years ago the senior fire officers of Bedfordshire, who were seriously concerned, asked me to lobby the Government to press for sprinklers to be installed in public, commercial and industrial buildings throughout the country. I was one of the Members who lobbied Ministers at that time, and had action been taken then we might have saved millions of pounds at Yarl's Wood, and in other circumstances lives might have been saved. That is as may be, and perhaps we are closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. None the less, there are lessons for the future. Many other buildings in the private and public sectors throughout Britain need sprinklers, and I hope that the Government will give urgent consideration to what needs to be done. In my meeting with the fire officers three years ago, they made a specific point about the density of sprinklers. In some buildings, although sprinklers are fitted, there are too few of them to do the job properly. The fire officers emphasised strongly that for sprinklers to be effective, the density needs to be sufficient, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will take note of what they said.

David Blunkett: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his foresight. However, an assessment is made for each particular facility not simply because of the cost of sprinklers but to determine their appropriateness. Obviously, where there is open accommodation and it is unlikely that people will deliberately commit arson, the need for a universal sprinkler system is reduced. I have acknowledged this afternoon that I believe that it was a mistake not to understand the nature of the secure removal centre facility, and the likelihood that people would behave as they did on 14 February, so the lesson has been well learned.

Ann Widdecombe: I echo the Home Secretary's congratulations to the public services involved in coping with the situation, and also his statement that the blame lies fairly and squarely with those who started the fire and behaved as they did. Nevertheless, the way in which he is operating his detention policy means that he is gathering together in one place several hundred people who are without hope, because they are at the end of the process. A high degree of volatility is built in; he is dealing with desperate people. I entirely understand and echo his wish that such centres should not be run as prisons, but given the nature of the population that they are holding, may I ask him to tell the House what the ratio of staff to prisoners is at those centres in comparison with category C prisons, and what degree of supervision was being exercised within the perimeters when the outbreak took place?

David Blunkett: I thank the right hon. Lady for her opening remarks.
	The size of Yarl's Wood is slightly misleading, in the sense that it is, and will be again, two 450-bed units. In other words, two centres are on one site, rather than 900 detainees being held in one substantial centre—hence the ability to have saved part of it. In fact, as of this morning, 143 detainees are in the unaffected block.
	I do not accept that we could have expected the behaviour of the detainees, even though their hope of remaining had been removed; but I accept that more could have been done—not least in relation to the latter point made by the right hon. Lady about the area between the perimeter fence and the buildings. That is something that I will take on board and will ask Stephen Moore to investigate particularly.
	I shall write to the right hon. Lady about the ratio of staff and the comparison with category C prisons.

Phyllis Starkey: Most people in my constituency would accept the need to detain people whose applications for asylum have been refused and who are awaiting deportation, but there are persistent rumours that not everybody in Yarl's Wood was in that category. Will the Home Secretary confirm that all the people in Yarl's Wood had at least had their initial application for asylum refused?

David Blunkett: I must be extremely careful not to give an answer that may prove misleading to the House.
	I am aware that there were people in Yarl's Wood who had not completed their appeals process. As my hon. Friend will have heard, I dealt earlier with the issue of ensuring that we get that right in future, so that there is different security and accommodation for people who are being fast-tracked but have not completed the process. However, it is my belief that all those who were there had completed the first stage of their application process, but I shall write to my hon. Friend and place a copy in the Library if what I have said proves incorrect.

Andrew Selous: May I also add my tribute to the men and women of the Bedfordshire police service and fire authority who handled the tragedy last week so expertly?
	May I press the Home Secretary once more on the question of insurance? Has he taken any advice as to whether he or the House need to do anything to ensure that the insurers cannot be successful in recouping the £43 million from Bedfordshire police? Will he give the House an assurance that Bedfordshire county council and the other local authorities involved will not have to foot any of the bill for rebuilding Yarl's Wood?

David Blunkett: For legal reasons I cannot give the assurances for which the hon. Gentleman asks. However, I can say that it is my intention—as I have made clear—that we should take whatever advice is necessary, and that we should work with the police, who are, of course, operationally independent, to protect their interests and those of the people they serve in the county. We must ensure that the police do not find themselves liable for that bill. At this stage, we must be very careful not to address the need to amend the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 in these circumstances, as no doubt the clever lawyers for the underwriters would use such indications as vindication of their stance.

Gwyn Prosser: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is already a busy induction centre in my Dover constituency and that the Dover young offenders institute is being converted to a removal centre. Can he assure me that that facility will not open until he is completely confident as to the security of people both inside the centre and in the locality? Does he share my relief that the centre in Dover will be fully staffed by highly experienced prison officers rather than private security guards?

David Blunkett: The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is, unequivocally, yes. On the second question, I expect operators, whether the Prison Service or independent operators such as Group 4 or UK Detention Services, to display the important levels of training and professionalism needed to undertake that difficult task.

Michael Weir: First, like other speakers this afternoon, I unreservedly condemn the violence and destruction at Yarl's Wood. I note that the Home Secretary referred in his statement to a small number of people who will take any step to prevent removal from the country. He went on to talk about toughening the regime. Will he tell us this afternoon what steps he has in mind for toughening the regime? I appeal to him not to be pushed down a route whereby the majority will suffer because of the action of an irresponsible few.

David Blunkett: I look to the inquiries to indicate the particular changes that will be required. I have already said in response to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that we will need to consider external security in terms of what is available immediately outside the centre. All of us would agree that we need to clarify the nature of what happens at the centres in the evening and at night. The need to increase surveillance and staffing is now self-evident. Until we are satisfied that we have introduced the kind of security that will prevent incidents of that sort occurring again, there will inevitably be a greater degree of security and surveillance than would otherwise be necessary. While that is unfortunate for other residents and detainees, albeit for a shorter and shorter period before removal, they have made it inevitable.

Martin Linton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while detention places are needed for those awaiting deportation, those who still await a decision or an appeal need a system that affords them dignity and respect? What progress is he making on the reforms already announced for a changeover from vouchers to cash?

David Blunkett: I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to say something cheery. I desperately need that opportunity, as the shadow Home Secretary sought to point out at the beginning of his contribution. I still retain a sense of humour somewhere deep inside.
	I have laid proposals before the House that, subject to parliamentary approval, under section 96(5) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will accelerate the removal of vouchers. Consequently, instead of being removed in the autumn, the voucher system will be replaced by a cash system on 8 April this year. That will ensure a sensible, speedy and effective administrative changeover.

Andrew Lansley: In the course of his statement, the Home Secretary referred to the review of fire safety in the removal centres. Will he confirm that he will also examine fire safety arrangements in Oakington as a detention centre? Will he also report on that to the House in due course? When he is considering the changes that he must make, he will be aware that, as a reception centre, Oakington has had a low level of people absconding up to now. However, if the regime is to consist of fast removals for those who are refused on the initial decision, which is followed by a fast-track appeal while they are housed in a removal centre, the pressure on the security of a place such as Oakington may increase. Will he also undertake to consider the appropriate level of security there?

David Blunkett: On the hon. Gentleman's primary concern, I am prepared to consider security at Oakington. However, it is worth pointing out that anyone who behaved in a fashion that gave rise to danger to others or insecurity at Oakington would, prima facie, damage severely their case for advancing further in the process on which they have embarked. It is in the best interests of those in Oakington to display their desire to remain in this country through behaviour that would allow us to want them in our country.

Ann Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend add to the comments that he has already made about the general opinion that property insurance policies are nullified by a riot? My concern is for Bradford, West Yorkshire police and West Yorkshire council tax payers in the wake of last year's riots in Bradford.

David Blunkett: I know that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members are deeply concerned about the impact of such events on insurance and liability. I want to make it absolutely clear that no one declared a riot at Yarl's Wood; it is important that people understand that, and those who choose to use quite different circumstances in public places as a benchmark would be wise to think again. The issue that my hon. Friend raises is valid, and outside the context of what happened at Yarl's Wood we will need to examine it very rapidly.

Points of Order

Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. One of the most serious allegations that can be levelled against a Member of this House, Back Bencher or Minister, is that we are lying; indeed, it is so serious that you would not permit us to personalise it in this Chamber. I cannot remember in my service in this House a weekend during which more people have alleged that a right hon. Member has been telling untruths than the weekend through which we have just lived. Can you tell the House whether the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions has sought to make a personal statement to the House today or indicated to you that he may seek to do so later this week?

Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am bound by the rules of the House. What happens outside the House is not a matter for me. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that no one has sought to make a statement or approached me about making a statement.

Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have given you notice of this matter. You will have seen the many reports in the press this weekend and today that the Prime Minister is to attend a summit in America with President Bush to plan a new military onslaught on Iraq. Given the growing unease in Britain and the uncritical support that our Prime Minister seems to be giving to President Bush's military adventure, surely the British people have the right to know if the Prime Minister is about to commit us to yet another war. May I ask you, therefore, whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will come to the House and make a statement about the reports that we have been reading?

Mr. Speaker: I can inform the hon. Lady that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Secretary has approached me on this matter.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday 14 February, the last day on which the House was sitting before the recess, the Leader of the House said in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth):
	"He asked for a denial of the story in The Mirror. I am pleased to give him the categorical denial that the e-mail that appears in The Mirror today is a fabrication; there was no such e-mail; there was no suggestion that the report should come out on Friday; and there was no disagreement on the matter between Mr. Sixsmith and Jo Moore".—[Official Report, 14 February 2002; Vol. 380, c. 314.]
	That afternoon, as it became clear that this story was unravelling, and following the Lobby briefing from No. 10 to the press, the Press Association carried stories that the position had materially changed from that of which the Leader of the House had advised the House at business questions. I raised the matter as a point of order with the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, asking whether she knew whether the Leader of the House was coming to the House to correct the record, so it cannot come as a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman that I am raising this point of order.
	"Erskine May" says, on page 63, that
	"it is of paramount importance that ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister".
	I am not suggesting that the Leader of the House has advertently misled Parliament, but plainly he has inadvertently misled Parliament, having been drawn into this tangled mess by the nonsense between No. 10 and the shambles in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Plainly he has to come to the House to correct the record of Thursday 14 February. Has he given you any indication that he will do so, and if not, why not?

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the words of a Minister. However, the hon. Gentleman has put the matter on the record and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take note of his comments.

Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that it is well known in the House that the Secretary of State for Transport behaves like a total cad towards his officials? Are you also aware that he has traduced the reputation of his permanent secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, who was permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence when I was a Minister and is a man of the highest integrity and probity? Are you further aware, as I am sure you are, that outside the House it is generally held that the right hon. Gentleman is a stranger to the truth? In the light of those circumstances—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is using another term for liar and he must withdraw that remark.

Nicholas Soames: If that is your wish, Mr. Speaker, of course I withdraw it.
	May I conclude by endorsing the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for North–West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), who asked why you are not able to insist that someone who has dragged his Department into utter chaos and public contempt is called before the high court of Parliament to give account of himself.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the rules of the House. I do not have that power.

Chris Grayling: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on what mechanisms are available to hon. Members when there is clear evidence of confusion and questionable statements being made by a senior Member of the House? What can we do to seek the presence of that Member to address those issues?

Mr. Speaker: There are many mechanisms but, as I have said before, a question raised during points of order is not the time for me to give such advice. However, I am willing to give advice in a more private situation.

Derek Conway: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Rather than seeking advice, I seek your guidance. Would you look kindly on a request by an hon. Member who has an Adjournment debate, however brief, scheduled for this week for its title to be changed so that the House can reflect on the actions of the Secretary of State for Transport? That would allow the Chamber to call the right hon. Gentleman to account for his shameless actions of the past week.

Mr. Speaker: On Adjournment debates, I am guided by certain rules. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to an Adjournment debate in his name, he can apply to my office for guidance.

Ann Widdecombe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of what you can insist on, will you confirm that in any circumstances in which a Minister faces serious questions about his conduct and the general situation in his Department, you would expect such a Minister to give an account of himself to the House at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Minister.

Julian Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has the Minister for the Cabinet Office indicated that he wants to make a statement in the House on the unprecedented situation of a senior serving civil servant giving a press conference this very day to explain away the disastrous mishmash that has resulted from shenanigans in the Transport Department?

Mr. Speaker: I have had no such approach.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Homelessness Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 5
	 — 
	Provision of accommodation for persons not in priority need who are not homeless intentionally

Lords amendment: No. 1.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 11.

Sally Keeble: The amendments were tabled in response to concerns raised during the Bill's consideration in another place and in this House on Second Reading and Report. The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide assistance and advice to homeless applicants who have been found not to have priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness.
	The Government believe that it is extremely important that local housing authorities provide a good service and ensure that they meet their statutory obligations under homelessness legislation. I am mindful, however, that much of the concern expressed stemmed from the perception that some authorities are not doing what they are already required to do by statute.
	The Bill strengthens the duties to provide advice and assistance, but the amendments will take that further. They will require an assessment of the applicant's housing need before any advice and assistance is provided, with a clear inference that the assessment must be taken into account in the advice and assistance proffered.
	The amendments will also require that the advice and assistance given include information about the type of accommodation that would be appropriate for applicants. That in turn must include information about the likely availability of accommodation in the local authority area, where applicants should go and to whom they should apply in order best to locate it. I must emphasise that those requirements will not be exhaustive and will not mean that advice and assistance is confined to such matters. Examples of other issues on which applicants may need advice and assistance will of course be covered in guidance.
	Amendment No. 1 is minor and consequential to amendments Nos. 11 and 12, which insert new subsections (6), (7) and (8) in section 195 of the Housing Act 1996. One effect will be to displace what would have been new subsection 195(6), as inserted by clause 5(2), and to renumber it as new subsection 195(8).
	The Government feel strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice for those experiencing or facing homelessness. Those issues were raised, among others, by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). The amendments will help to focus local housing authority minds on what must be done. Clearly, placing statutory duties on local authorities may not always be sufficient to ensure that good quality and consistent results are delivered on the ground, so we shall reinforce our message through clear statutory guidance. I commend the amendments to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: This is the last opportunity that the House will have to discuss the Homelessness Bill. The Bill started its life under the guise of the Homes Bill, which included provision for the seller's pack—the controversial part 1 of the Bill. Part 2 of that Bill, which has become the Homelessness Bill, was uncontentious and, had it been a Bill on its own, would have become law before the election. So, in a sense, the huge number of hours that both Houses have spent debating these matters has been unnecessary. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's official Opposition welcome the Bill—although we also welcome the opportunity to discuss the amendments.
	The amendments will strengthen the duties on local authorities to assist homeless people who are not in priority need. When providing advice and assistance, an authority will have to assess the applicant's need and provide information about the availability, location and sources of accommodation appropriate to the applicant's needs. As well as applying to those who are unintentionally homeless but not in priority need, the amendments apply to people who are intentionally homeless and to those who are threatened with homelessness but not in priority need.
	On Second Reading, I asked the Minister when she would publish the list of those in priority need. We were assured, in this House and in another place, that it would be published by Third Reading—yet here we are, considering complicated Lords amendments, which is difficult to do without having seen the list of priority homeless. We think that we know what will be on it, but it would have been helpful to see it.
	Before the election, the Prime Minister promised everyone the chance of a decent home, and we all say amen to that. He also vowed:
	"Our approach will be founded on the basic aim of ensuring that everyone has a chance to a decent home".
	[Interruption.] Whatever Labour Members are saying, the Government's own statistics show that homelessness in England has increased by almost 12,000 in the past four years. The number of priority homeless has risen from 102,650 in 1997–98 to 114,350 in 2000–01—an increase of 11,700 or 11 per cent. under the Government's stewardship.
	The Lords amendments are welcome, but the number of homeless is going up, the number of social housing units being built is going down and the number of empty homes is going up. The situation is getting worse and may be appreciably worse than the Government's official statistics indicate. Crisis—the charity formerly known as Crisis at Christmas—estimates that there might be up to 400,000 hidden homeless. The Government are aware of those figures, and I ask the Minister to instigate some proper research so that we can find out the true situation.
	The number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation has soared. Since the election, it has increased by 9 per cent., from 11,340 to 12,290. It is all very well Lords amendments Nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 requiring guidance to be given, but if the Government do not know the true state of homelessness it will be difficult for local authorities to give guidance and come up with strategies. A huge amount of money is wasted on short-term bed and breakfast accommodation. If a proper capital budget could be formulated so that private rented leased accommodation could be purchased, we could begin to get some people into long-term, decent homes, which was the Prime Minister's aspiration before the election.
	Shelter strongly supports the Lords amendments. Throughout the Bill's passage, and that of its predecessor, the Homes Bill, it raised concerns about the quality of advice and assistance given to non-priority homeless applicants. Some local authorities are very good at providing such advice, but some—the laggards—are pretty poor, which is why we welcome the Lords amendments.
	Shelter's concerns were highlighted in its report "Singles Barred" and were taken up by right hon. and hon. Members. Under current arrangements, it is common for applicants simply to be given a list of bed and breakfast hotels, irrespective of their needs. Given the deteriorating homeless situation and the fact that the number of people in bed and breakfast accommodation is rising alarmingly, there is an even greater need for the amendments. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us an idea of the true situation and what the Government are doing about it.
	The bed and breakfast unit is trying to reduce the number of homeless people, but without the proper budget to do so. The rough sleepers unit has reduced the figures, but in a similar count of rough sleepers the Simon Community found the same number in just a few streets rather than the whole capital. The accusation is that, to get the count down, the rough sleepers unit has been deliberately massaging those people who are sleeping rough. That is a pretty serious accusation, and we want to ensure that we know the true number of hidden homeless.
	In mentioning the hidden homeless, perhaps I should take a minute or two of the House's time to describe what Crisis and other organisations are getting at when they refer to the estimated 400,000 people who, despite the Prime Minister's aspirations, have no proper roof over their heads. They include all those who sleep anywhere—rough, in bed and breakfast accommodation, or on somebody else's floor or sofa—other than in a permanent house of their own. The number of such homeless is rising all the time because more and more people are not in a stable marriage, because they aspire to own a home at a younger age, because they are living longer and because a certain number of legal and illegal immigrants are taking up houses that would otherwise be used to accommodate the homeless.

Dari Taylor: Shame!

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Lady says "shame", but it is a fact of life that people are coming into this country and taking up houses that would otherwise be used for the homeless. Until the Government recognise that fact—

Dari Taylor: Disgraceful!

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is not disgraceful. It is a fact of life, and if the Government do not recognise it, how will they provide a proper policy for the homeless?

Adrian Sanders: Is it not true that there are two other factors that the hon. Gentleman has not mentioned: house prices rising beyond the pocket of most people, and the failure to use funds derived from the sale of council houses to provide replacement social housing? They are much more significant factors than the ones that he mentions.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we are engaged not in a general debate on homelessness, but in a discussion of the amendment, to which we must revert.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are discussing amendments that will give powers to, and impose duties on, local authorities, against the background of a general deterioration in the homelessness situation. Given that the Government have not provided the list of priority homeless that they promised, it is a little difficult—

Sally Keeble: Did the hon. Gentleman look at the draft order that was consulted on between August and October? If he did, what does he think of the different categories that it sets out, which are exactly those proposed?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Exactly what I said—we have a good idea of what is in those categories because the Government published a consultation paper. Having consulted, the Government ought now to be able to tell us the results and publish the order. That is what we asked for on Second Reading, but we still have not been given it. To ask us to discuss the amendments when we do not know what the order will contain is a pretty shoddy way to treat the House. A statutory instrument could easily have been tabled and the matter could have been discussed upstairs before dealing with the amendments.
	The amendments build on an earlier Government amendment, tabled during the passage of the Homes Bill, to strengthen the current duty to provide advice and assistance. Taken together, they should ensure that the quality of advice and assistance provided to non-priority homeless applicants will meet the basic minimum standards. We will all agree that that is a worthy aspiration, and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say before deciding how to proceed.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) says that he supports the Bill, but proceeds to rubbish it, which will come as no surprise to anyone in this House. If we have heard anything shoddy this afternoon, it is his level of debate. In so many such areas, a corporate amnesia strikes all members of the Conservative party. The concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed for those categories of people in inadequate housing or without a home comes as something of a surprise. I cannot remember him ever voicing his concerns when the Conservative Government were in power and laid the foundations for the housing crisis that we undoubtedly now have in London. 4.45 pm

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Lady believes that the record of the previous Government was so bad, will she explain why we maintained a substantial level of new build in social housing, a total that has almost halved—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already reminded all hon. Members that the debate is on the amendment.

Glenda Jackson: I will, of course, abide by your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it breaks my heart because I have the figures at the tip of my tongue to show just what damage was inflicted on affordable house building, not least in London.
	I most earnestly support the Government's clear commitment to making a sizeable part of housing socially affordable, and the amendments are therefore welcome, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to answer some of my questions on these amendments. The provision of advice is essential in preventing homelessness and in assisting those people, of whatever category, who face the fact that they are or will soon become homeless. A properly integrated advice service is necessary to all local authorities. We have many good examples in some London boroughs of how such an integrated service can work. It requires integration not only by local authority housing departments but by social services and health departments.
	Given the categorisation that is increasingly used in order to try to identify the most vulnerable in terms of housing need, local authorities need to be able to incorporate those advice centres that deal specifically with one category of person, be it the single homeless, women or the elderly. In future, local authorities should not automatically refer someone seeking advice to one of those single category advice centres, because there must be some way to integrate the advice provided, especially as local knowledge is so important to the issue.
	The central point that I wish to make is that we are asking local authorities to take on a greater and more complex burden than the one with which they currently attempt to cope. I hope that the Government will consider providing the additional resources for local authorities that will undoubtedly be needed, not least to train their front-line staff once the strategy has been introduced and the advice service has been finalised and defined. In that way, the staff—who, day in and day out, will meet desperate and distressed people—will be able to provide the quality of service that will be essential to the strategy.
	We should also have some way in which to monitor whether advice services are up to date with the most recent advice and statutory changes—

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Glenda Jackson: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
	Such advice and statutory changes may impact on people who face the possibility of homelessness or who are already homeless. The most obvious example for those of us who represent London constituencies is the changes that have been made to the housing benefit system. It is not unusual for someone giving advice to be unaware of the changes that have been made, but advice must be accurate and up to the minute. Therefore, while I welcome the amendments, I strongly urge that the Government consider the issue carefully, especially the need for additional support and resources for local authorities.

Don Foster: I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) that we are now putting great pressure on local authority housing departments. The Bill will place significant additional burdens on the housing departments of local councils, so extra resources, were they to be made available by the Government, would be most welcome. I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that advice must be up to the minute, comprehensive and accurate; many housing departments will be required to improve significantly the range of training opportunities for their staff so that they can provide that advice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way early in his speech. Is he aware that the Bill's money resolution provided £8 million, which has already been used up? The Association of London Government reckons that £20 million is required to implement the Bill, including the Lords amendments, in London alone? The cost for the entire country is therefore likely to be £40 million, which will largely be borne by local authorities up and down the land.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, as it is the next point that is logical for me to make. He will be well aware that the Government have accepted the new burdens principle: if additional burdens are placed on other bodies, the Government will make funds available to meet those requirements. There is growing concern in local government, not just in London but across the country, that the new burdens placed on it by the legislation, welcome as it is, will not be sufficiently met by the sums currently allocated in the money resolution, as the hon. Gentleman said.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that, but there is an area of disagreement between us. In his opening remarks, he said that had the homelessness provisions of the Homes Bill been dealt with separately, the measure would have gone through the House and another place very quickly indeed, and that there would have been no need for our subsequent lengthy debate. I fundamentally disagree; one of the great merits of that debate is that it enabled a large number of amendments to be tabled by parties on both sides of the House and considered by the Government.
	The Government have considered many proposals and accepted some of them, sometimes reluctantly. As a result, the Bill has been significantly strengthened in a number of areas. The issue of the advice and guidance to homeless people was first raised in early discussions of the Bill; initially, proposals by Members on both sides of the House were rejected by the Government. I am delighted that at long last we are considering those proposals in the Lords amendments, because they strengthen the Bill significantly. As the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) pointed out, although many councils and their housing departments provide an excellent service in delivering clear, timely, up-to-date and comprehensive advice and guidance to homeless and potentially homeless people, sadly, as the Shelter report points out, a number of local authorities are not in the same league; some of them have not been providing particularly helpful advice and guidance. The Lords amendments strengthen the legislation, making it a requirement for all local authorities to provide high-quality advice and guidance, so I very much welcome them.
	Like the hon. Member for Cotswold, I am concerned that providing advice and guidance to homeless people will be of minor assistance in tackling the problem, unless there is a significant increase in the availability of affordable housing for the many people who are either homeless or who have an unacceptable standard of housing.
	Like many other Members, I am concerned about the availability of affordable housing. A small step that the Government sensibly took was the new deal for communities plan, which was designed to help to improve the quality of the housing stock. Unfortunately, although the Government made a commitment that £240 million would be available for the current financial year, the amount spent under the scheme, as a result of a range of difficulties that were apparently unforeseen by the Government, will probably be less than half the money allocated. There is a real problem, and the Government may fail to achieve their sensible target of bringing all housing up to a decent standard by 2010. I shall be grateful if the Minister comments on that issue.
	The Minister will be well aware of some of the commitments that Lord Falconer made in another place. I know that the Government are keen on recycling. Part of the Minister's speech today is word for word the speech given by her noble Friend, although there is nothing wrong with that. She told us that the Government feel strongly that there must be increased emphasis on the provision of good quality, properly tailored and timely advice to those who are experiencing or facing homelessness. I suspect that she carries the entire House with her in that regard.
	In another place, my noble Friend Lady Maddock asked Lord Falconer to give assurances that there would be clear indications of how local authorities' work in this area and their performance would be monitored. In response, Lord Falconer referred to plans to introduce a homelessness directorate within the Department. He said that part of the directorate's job would be to monitor the advice and guidance given by local authorities. When the Minister responds, I hope that she will say how that work is progressing.
	The Minister in another place referred to existing inspection arrangements for local authorities as a second strand of monitoring. He referred specifically to the Government's plans for a national homelessness strategy and the relevance of that to the inspection of local councils' work. I shall be grateful if the Minister is able to give us any more up-to-date information about that work.
	The amendments refer only to the advice and guidance that is to be given by local authorities. The House will be aware, however, that an increasing proportion of affordable housing is no longer in the hands of local authorities. We know that within the next three or four years more than 50 per cent. of affordable housing will be in the hands of registered social landlords.
	The Minister will be well aware that throughout our deliberations on the Bill I have stressed the importance of close co-operation between local authority housing departments and registered social landlords. What thought have the Government given to ensuring that registered social landlords will be helped and enabled to increase the quality of advice and support that they are able to offer, preferably in conjunction with local authority housing departments? I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on that and on whether advice and guidance will form part of the Housing Corporation's guidance to registered social landlords.
	I know that the Minister believes that the link between registered social landlords and housing departments is an important one, for she has said so on several occasions. I hope that we can have her assurance that the issue of advice and guidance will form part of a close working relationship.
	We listened with interest to the hon. Member for Cotswold. I suspect that some of us disagreed with some of his remarks. Perhaps some of us strongly disagreed with his remarks about people who come in from outside this country and take the homes of the people already here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether those were wise remarks for him to make. He might also wish to reflect on the wisdom of his reference to the massaging of people sleeping rough. Many of those people need a great deal of help and support. Massaging may be a small part of their requirements, but they need far more.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The hon. Gentleman is quoting me out of context. He knows very well that Crisis used similar language when the counts were made. It implies no lack of caring for those people; quite the reverse. We want to know accurately how many there are, so that we can take the appropriate action.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is compounding his earlier error. There is a reasonable debate to be had about the massaging of the figures in relation to the number of people sleeping rough. That is not precisely what he said.

Oona King: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton- Brown), does the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) agree that although housing asylum seekers is a factor, it is by no means the main factor? Is it not right to reflect on the impact of the right to buy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting though that may be, I remind hon. Members once again that they must confine their remarks to the amendment under discussion.

Don Foster: I accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not allowed to say anything in response, other than that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King).
	I have made it clear that my party and I support the amendments. The record will show that they were originally introduced by Liberal Democrats in both Houses of Parliament. We are therefore delighted that they are to form part of important legislation, which I hope will be on the statute book in a very short time.

Chris Grayling: I give the amendments a cautionary welcome. I have no doubt that the Minister's words and those of Lord Falconer in the other place about the aspiration underlying the amendments are well founded, but the Government need to be mindful of the consequences of such legislation, not because its motives are wrong, but because if it is implemented thoughtlessly, it could add considerably to the burden faced by local authority officers who are already hard pressed. It is difficult to legislate best practice into existence, which I assume is the aim of the amendments.
	Speaking about the amendments in the other place, Lord Falconer said, and the Minister said similarly this afternoon:
	"The concerns centred on the fact that not all local housing authorities deliver a good service when discharging their duties to provide advice and assistance to homeless applicants who have been found not to have a priority need for accommodation or to be intentionally homeless or threatened with homelessness."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2002; Vol. 631, c. 994.]
	The key words are
	"not all local housing authorities".
	Around the country there are many well-run local authorities and housing departments, with first class officers who do as effective a job as they can in extremely difficult circumstances. There is a danger that in the detailed way in which the Government choose to implement the amendments, they risk imposing an undue extra burden on local authorities that are doing a good job. I seek the Minister's reassurance this afternoon that she will endeavour to ensure that that does not happen.
	Problems of poor management can never be solved by legislation, but it is all too easy to place an additional burden on a hard-working officer who is already having difficulty getting the job done in the hours available, not because of anything to do with that person's job, but because of a small minority of problem cases in individual authorities.

Andrew Love: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of reports suggesting that, to date, the advice and assistance of some local authorities has been merely to refer people to Shelterline. Is he suggesting that we do not need the amendments? Clearly, the facts deny that view.

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I am not for a moment suggesting that we do not need the amendments. However, if the Government get the practicality of their implementation wrong, they could place an undue burden on housing officers who are doing a first-rate job. I am sure that he would agree that first-rate authorities are doing a first-rate job in many parts of the country. Such authorities would not countenance delivering an inadequate response to somebody who approached them with genuine need, but would do their best to deliver a practical, effective and proper solution. We need to support such people and guide towards better practice the authorities that take the actions that he describes.

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Does he accept that we legislate and provide guidance on best practice not for those who achieve it, but for those who do not?

Chris Grayling: I fully accept that the role of such legislation and of the amendments is to set a clear signpost for local authorities about what is expected of them. However, difficulties can arise in terms of the minutiae of implementation and how the provisions are put into practice. Many local authorities are delivering best practice. I spoke to a local authority officer today who said, "We are doing these things already; the first thing that we do when somebody comes to us with a problem is sit down, talk through their needs and work out their individual situation, so we can look at the options that are available to them." There is no doubt that that is already happening in many local authorities, although as the hon. Gentleman said, some do not follow such procedures.
	Will the Minister explain what local authorities will have to do differently as a result of the amendments? Will they have to follow new procedures and check what they do against new guidelines as they work through the process of greeting somebody? How will the process differ from the way in which they currently handle such matters? Will their work in this area be subject to additional scrutiny? That point is significant, because if officers need to spend more time preparing paperwork for inspection, an additional burden will inevitably be imposed upon them. Thus, the detail of how the Government implement the provisions is extremely important. It is all too easy for a zealous project team to impose on authority officers a pile of paperwork and a process that is vastly too onerous and represents overkill rather than an effective solution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) mentioned cost and highlighted the situation in London. The process has cost implications, and the Government always need to be mindful that every step they take potentially has such an implication. Costs may arise in terms of man hours rather than direct cash investment, but none the less, the Government need carefully to consider the matter when they think through implementation. In addition, if a case is simple—housing officers deal with some simple and straightforward cases—will the process create much more complexity for applicants? They also need to be mindful of that issue. Furthermore, as hon. Members have mentioned, it is all well and good having an excellent advice process for applicants with genuine needs, but in many parts of the country—my local boroughs of Epsom and Ewell, Reigate and Banstead and Mole Valley certainly fit the bill—the housing options do not necessarily exist to enable officers to deal with the problems that arrive on their doorsteps, even if advice processes are excellent. Regrettably, in the past four or five years, the number of new social houses built in this country has fallen dramatically.
	My message to the Minister—I hope that she will respond to some of the points that I have made—is that the Government have a habit of imposing extra work on local authorities. I am still a councillor in the London borough of Merton and I have seen directly that that is the case. It is all too easy for 15 different small initiatives to create a significant block of extra work load for a local authority, especially when they come from different parts of Government. I seek the Minister's assurance that the legislation provides a signpost and will be handled lightly, except in the most pressing cases, and not impose huge amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy and time-consuming work on good, effective and hard-working local authority officers. I seek her assurance that it will be not an imposition on the best, but a route to tackle the worst.

Mark Field: I, too, will speak briefly, because hon. Members have covered several of the main points.
	I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) as regards the implementation of the provisions. The issue of London, where homelessness is a massive problem, was powerfully discussed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson). The burden falls occasionally on the shoulders of London Members of Parliament, but most often, unfortunately, on locally elected councillors who do not necessarily have the wherewithal or the time to deal with such a large number of cases. I am worried that the provisions have been insufficiently thought through, and I hope that the Minister will be able to pacify my fears. I agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate that we in London require considerably more resources. I represent a central London seat. Asylum seekers place a great burden on the city of Westminster in relation to housing.
	As a quick aside, I want to say that the rough sleepers unit has been a great success during the past three or four years. Although concerns have been expressed about the massaging of figures, that should not detract from its achievements. Ms Casey and the Metropolitan police have played an important role in helping to clear up the streets in central London. I hope that they have done so in an effective and long-term way. I shall move off that subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I can see that your tolerance has been taken almost to breaking point.
	There is a particularly acute homelessness problem here in London. I hope that consideration will be given to increasing central Government resources or to targeting one or two experimental schemes to ensure that the right policy is put in place, not one that will cost a lot of money and create more bureaucracy further down the line.
	The homelessness problem in London turns not only on asylum seekers. Many young people see London as a honeypot—an exciting area to live. They take casual labouring jobs, working initially on a part-time basis, and are then unable to afford to pay rent, start to sleep rough and spiral downwards. That leads to problems deeper than those that are dealt with by housing departments.
	Will the Minister provide for an opportunity within a fairly short time—say, two or three years—to judge whether the provisions are working correctly? Will she ensure, through the new burdens principle, that, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), any ongoing problems do not place undue burdens on local council taxpayers here in London?

Sally Keeble: Opposition Members' explanation of their position on the Bill was more than a little bogus. It was always a good Bill that advanced the rights of homeless people, which is why it met with such strong support on both sides of the House. We must all recognise that a Bill can be improved in the course of its progress through Parliament; that is what this process is about.
	This is an example of a good Bill having been made better by careful scrutiny during its passage. The amendments are a case in point. The issues that they deal with have been argued about right from the start, and we have tabled amendments that address some of the concerns that have been raised. This must be about the fifth or sixth time that we have debated the Bill, but hon. Members are still expressing those concerns. That makes me think that if we went through it another a half a dozen times we would still go on producing refinement after refinement.
	This group of amendments is important because it deals with those who are homeless but who do not have priority needs. We all know that the homelessness figures, and those for people living in bed and breakfast accommodation, have been going up. The Government are extremely conscious of those figures, and of the fact that hon. Members on both sides have constantly raised them, and we have taken action to deal with them. I shall not go into the details of that action, because I might be ruled out of order. We have, however, taken action very quickly, and the numbers—hard and sad though they are—are not a patch on those of 10 years ago.
	In response to the points made by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton–Brown) about the priority needs order, I would expect there to be a likelihood that some of the figures could get worse once such orders are in place. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is asking questions about the orders, because draft provisions have been consulted on and were widely known. He must know about the different categories involved, which include homeless 16 and 17-year-olds, care leavers who are vulnerable as a result of having been in care, people who are vulnerable as a result of institutionalisation—including those who have been in custody, about whom some Conservative Members were concerned—and those who are vulnerable as a result of fleeing domestic violence.

Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister will understand that, following the draft provisions and the consultation, the House is still waiting for the Government's response to the consultation. Is the list of categories that she has just outlined to be the final list? If it is, I welcome it warmly—as, I suspect, will the vast majority of those who responded to the consultation—but we have not heard that officially yet.

Sally Keeble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We have a very good working idea, if I can put it that way, of the categories of people involved in these provisions.
	The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) illustrates why these amendments are so important. The advice will be available not only to people with priority needs, which is why it is so important that we improve the quality of this service, and I understand why the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and others pressed so hard to table amendments of this kind.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) asked a question about the nature of the advice and what exactly it would mean. The amendments represent progress because they would enshrine in the legislation the processes that should be gone through in giving advice to people who do not have priority needs. That would include making an assessment of their needs, and providing information on the location and sources of certain types of accommodation. The proposals would be effective because they set out the processes that those without priority needs need to go through to get the right quality of advice.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister has admitted that, when these categories of priority needs are published, the amount of homeless people with those priority needs will rise. I have told the House today how the figures have risen in the last three years. Is the Minister able to give the House any clear guidance on how far the homelessness figures will rise further as a result of these specific amendments?

Sally Keeble: No, that is not possible. The hon. Gentleman will see what I said when he reads Hansard, but what I think I said was that the figures would rise in some areas. It is possible that the work that needs to be done to get the homelessness figures down will produce rapid results, and that by the time the priority needs orders come into effect the figures will have gone down, so that there will be a slight increase at that point from a lower base. It is impossible, however, to give an accurate estimate of the numbers, largely because this involves categories of people who have not been recognised under previous legislation. Therefore, we obviously do not know how many are involved, but common sense tells us that if more people are regarded as homeless and given rights to housing, the numbers are likely to go up. We shall look closely to see what happens in terms of those figures.

Chris Grayling: To pick up the Minister's point relating to my comments, will she reassure me that any new process will not require all those authorities that are doing the job properly to make changes, but will set an alternative benchmark for those that are not?

Sally Keeble: That depends on whether they are going through the process as it is now. The proposal sets out the procedures that should be gone through to ensure that people who are homeless but not in priority need get the advice and help that they require to secure accommodation. Local authorities will be able to decide quickly as to whether they already go through such a process—the matter is for them to judge—but the proposal represents an effective way to specify outcomes and ensure that people know what they have to do to provide an effective service. More detail will be given in guidance.
	On monitoring, as has been said in another place, housing departments undergo best value inspections and work will be done through the new homelessness unit. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate asked about money. Already, £8 million has been allocated to local authorities to administer the new legislation and I understand that discussions are taking place around the possibilities of making additional provision. The spending review process is also in place. That, I hope, deals with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bath.

Brian Iddon: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Sally Keeble: I hear the voice of my hon. Friend behind me. I give way to him.

Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend find it staggering, as we on these Benches do, that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is whingeing about the extra burden that may be placed on his public sector housing authority? The City of Westminster did everything possible to flog off every council house there. Should not we also remind him that there is the matter of £48 million outstanding? Will the City of Westminster chase—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Sally Keeble: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must say that I cannot help agreeing with my hon. Friend.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Mark Field: rose—

Sally Keeble: I give way to the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).

Mark Field: On the basis of that brief exchange, may I point out that the sum concerned is about £24 million?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but that is not germane to the debate.

Sally Keeble: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: rose—

Sally Keeble: I want to make progress, but I shall come back to the hon. Gentleman.
	The hon. Member for Bath was right to refer to the Shelter report, which highlights the need to give extra thought to advice for non-priority people. I am pleased that it has been possible to introduce what I think are simple and workable amendments that will improve the quality of service for those groups. He also asked about the decent housing target. The Government have made a huge commitment to that challenge and we are assured through all the local authority returns that we are still on target to meet it.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the relationship between the housing associations and the local authorities and, in particular, responsibility for advice in areas where large-scale stock transfers take place. I have two points to make. First, the Department continues to work closely with the Housing Corporation, at both official and ministerial levels, to ensure that those in social housing are given a good service—a seamless robe, as it were—when that it is humanly possible. Secondly, a number of local authorities do not always appreciate that they will not lose all responsibility for housing functions in their areas just because they have transferred their stock. They will still be responsible for procurement.
	I take the point of the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell about the need to have aspirations, while ensuring that they are practical. As I have said, the amendment would guarantee—without giving rise to a great pile of bureaucracy—that those needing advice received it, and that the advice was of a uniform standard throughout the country.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I return the Minister to an issue that was raised before she was interrupted by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and ruled out of order? She said that the Government had provided £8 million in compliance costs. Can she confirm that the money has already been used up in preparations for the Bill? Does she agree with the Association of London Government, which estimates the compliance cost for London alone at £20 million? By extrapolation, we can expect the Bill to cost authorities in England and Wales some £40 million. Are the Government likely to give that amount to local authorities, or will it be yet another of the burdens on authorities that the council tax payer will have to fund?

Sally Keeble: As I have said, £8 million has been allowed for and allocated, but I understand that it has not been used up. Obviously, officials are constantly discussing the costs of implementing this and other legislation with local authorities, and we continue to keep the matter under review; but we are committed to funding new burdens, and that commitment has been recognised in this Bill as in others.
	The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) thought that the implications of the amendments had not been thought through properly. Some of us may think that they were thought through for rather too long. Certainly it took an inordinately long time for the proposals in the Bill to be accepted. The hon. Member for Bath laughs, probably because he knows how long the discussions have taken.
	I realise that Westminster is experiencing serious difficulties—some caused by the disposal of council houses mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon)—relating to homelessness and bed and breakfast accommodation. That is one reason why measures of this kind are so important. Hard though it may be to provide permanent accommodation for homeless people, and to deal with the awfulness of being housed in bed and breakfast accommodation, there is also the category of people who have no housing, who have no priority under the legislation, and who are finding it extremely difficult to find somewhere to live. Those are the people who should benefit from measures such as this, which will enable them to receive advice and be pointed towards accommodation. 5.30 pm
	I hope that that deals with hon. Members' queries. It is a small, practical but important provision which will go a long way towards improving what is an already good Bill. I commend the amendment to the House.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Events which cause the duty to cease

Lords amendment: No. 2.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this we may also consider amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment.

Sally Keeble: Again, this is a small but important amendment that ensures that people understand the consequences when they are offered accommodation.
	At Committee stage in another place, concern was expressed that local housing authorities should not be able to bring the main homelessness duty to an end with a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy with a private landlord before it was absolutely clear that the applicant had understood the written statement that explains that that person has no obligation to accept the offer and that, if they do accept it, the homelessness duty will end.
	The Government had a lot of sympathy with that concern. I think that hon. Members will agree that the crucial point is that the applicant must confirm that he or she has understood the statement. That may involve the person reading the statement themselves or someone else reading it to them. However, it may involve translating the statement into another language, or explaining to the applicant step by step what the effect of accepting an offer would be.
	The Government are therefore of the view that it is unnecessary for the Bill to refer to the means by which an applicant must come to understand the content of the statement. All that is needed is the central requirement that the person has understood it.
	Amendment No. 2 would achieve that and simplify the Bill. It would have the benefit of emphasising the key requirement that the applicant has understood the statement. I therefore commend amendment No. 2 to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I suspect that we all agree with the Government's aspiration. It is a question of how it is done and what may happen if it is not done correctly, which is why we have tabled an amendment in lieu.
	The to-ing and fro-ing that took place in the Lords is very interesting but perhaps I should explain what is in the Government's mind and what is in our mind. New subsection (7B) in clause 7 states:
	"The authority shall also cease to be subject to the duty under this section if the applicant accepts a qualifying offer of an assured shorthold tenancy",
	It is an important part of the Bill's operation. The moment the applicant has accepted the offer, the local authority will not be under any of the obligations that we have talked about: to give advice, assistance and everything else. So it is important that the applicant has read and understood it. For some reason the Government want to take out the words in new subsection (7E) "read and understood". To the contrary, we would like to strengthen this whole matter and insert the words:
	"the statement mentioned in subsection (7D), or that it has been read to him, and that he understands it."
	We want to be crystal clear that, in accepting the offer, the applicant, who may not be able to read or may be of limited learning, understands what is being put in front of him. We all have constituents who come to our surgeries and articulate what their fear or their particular problem is, but who, if we asked them to put it down in a letter, would not be able to do it. It is thus an important matter.
	In supporting the amendment in another place, my noble Friend Baroness Hanham said:
	"On amendment No. 15, as my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville has already said, there should be no question that somebody has understood the words relating to the qualifying offer."
	Those are important words. My noble Friend continued:
	"I know it is common practice in Parliament to suggest that somebody should sign in relation to what they have read and understood. In relation to the world in which we are trespassing at the moment—those who are homeless and many of whom are vulnerable—it would be correct not to assume that they could have read. Indeed, somebody should have ensured that they understood the matter and that, if they could not read, it was read to them".
	We all agree with that, and our fear is that it will not happen.
	I do not understand why the Government want to take the words out. One would expect that when an offer was put in front of somebody, he would be asked—in a non-intimidatory way—whether he could read it and understand it. If there was any doubt whatever about whether he could read or understand it, he should have it explained to him—with patience, and for as long as it took.
	In replying to my noble Friend Baroness Hanham, the Minister, Lord Falconer, said:
	"Finally, Amendment No. 15 seeks to protect the position of applicants who, for whatever reason, would be unable to read a statement from the local housing authority about the qualifying offer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this point. I give an undertaking to consider it and come back with some form of solution to the problem at Report stage because a solution is clearly required."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 December 2001; Vol. 629, c. 30-32.]
	What is the Government's solution? To take out the words "read and"—in other words, to weaken the provisions. Later, on Report in the House of Lords, Lord Falconer moved amendment No. 12, to leave out the words "read and", so the amendment was agreed to in another place. I cannot understand why the Government want to take those words out. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) or the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) wish to intervene? Apparently not.
	It is extraordinary that the Government now want to weaken the clause. It is a serious matter when a qualifying person is made such an offer, because he could lose all his existing rights. If he has not properly understood that, the situation is serious. I look to the Minister to provide us with a real explanation of why the Government are doing this, so that we can consider whether we want to vote on the amendment.

Don Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) for having spent a few minutes with me before our deliberations explaining his and his party's thinking on this issue. I listened with great care to what he said, and I note with considerable interest that he shares my concern that the important factor is the understanding. It is vital that the person concerned has understood the question on which he has to make a decision.
	I also note, however, that the hon. Gentleman's proposed amendment in lieu would make no change whatever concerning understanding. The words
	"and that he understands it"
	appear in his amendment, just as the words "and understood" appear in the wording proposed by the Minister. Although I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the crucial word is "understands", neither his amendment nor the Minister's proposed wording gives full details of how it is to be checked that the person has understood, so that is the issue that the Minister must deal with in responding to the debate. I shall listen with great interest to the assurances that she can give the hon. Gentleman and me that procedures will be in place to ensure that the applicant has understood the issue before him.
	Inevitably, as one might expect, I have had discussions with Shelter. As I am sure that the whole House is aware, Shelter has played a valuable role in determining on and proposing amendments. I am delighted that on many occasions—sometimes after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing—those amendments have been accepted by the Government.
	There is no doubt whatever of Shelter's view: "understanding" is the crucial word. Shelter's briefing makes the point succinctly and clearly:
	"By omitting the requirement to read the statement, the amendment will ensure that those who are unable to read it are given a proper opportunity to fully understand it by having it translated or read to them."
	Those are almost the same words as the Minister used in her introductory remarks, so it is clearly the Government's intention that alternative procedures will be set up to ensure that translation is available and that there are opportunities for someone to read the documentation to the applicant.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I should be most grateful if the hon. Gentleman explained one simple point: how is a person supposed to understand the offer if he has not read it? Without the amendment, the Bill makes it clear that he has both to read and understand the offer. He should then be asked whether he has read and understood it.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman and I agree that the crucial issue is understanding. Various mechanisms can help someone to understand: the individual could read the document himself; a translation could be prepared for him to read; or the document could be read to him. The amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman suggests that the person would have read the offer or would have had it read to him.
	The Minister went further. She said that a translation would be made available and that there would be an explanatory discussion. That strikes me as a better way of proceeding. All those points will pale into insignificance, however, unless we make it clear that a variety of strategies will be offered to ensure that the person has understood.
	The hon. Gentleman asks me how we shall know for certain that a person really has understood. His amendment does not address that question any more than the Government's proposals. Let us hear what the Minister has to say to reassure us. If we can be assured that there will be strategies to ensure that people understand, we may be able to make some progress.

Chris Grayling: I want to say a few words in support of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). He has articulately set out the problems as regards literacy and the implications for someone who is illiterate or not fully literate in understanding often complex matters. Two further points need to be addressed. Before I do so, I should point out that—as we have been discussing private lettings—I am a small-scale private landlord, as listed in the Register of Members' Interests, although that is not specifically relevant to the detail of this debate.
	In the few months I have been a Member of Parliament, my experience—like that of many hon. Members—is that at constituency level housing issues are much more complex to deal with than they first appear. There are always two sides to every argument, debate and discussion: for example, whether someone was allocated an appropriate property; or whether a housing application has been dealt with appropriately.
	A stipulation that relies entirely on the use of the word "understand" leaves open a broad area for debate and discussion if things go wrong. Who said what to whom? Was something fully explained? Did the person read the documentation or not? If something goes wrong with a private letting after a few months and the tenant seeks additional help from the authority, matters of dispute in the initial discussion—for example, what was communicated to whom and when, or what was read or not read—could have significant implications for future housing. The Lords amendment, residing as it does entirely in the word "understood", leaves too much room for dispute at a later stage. It would not be prudent or sensible for the House to go forward on that basis.
	The second point is fundamentally important. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) touched on it. It relates to the ethnic community, either people already in this country or those who come to the UK seeking accommodation. Anyone who has been involved with local authorities knows that nowadays they often have to produce documentation in a considerable number of languages.
	As many people with housing problems have little or no knowledge of English, how can we be sure that an applicant who does not have a first-rate command of English and is dealing with an English-speaking housing officer is able fully to understand the legal implications of what they are doing? In those circumstances, if the legislation relies only on the use of the word "understood", it will open up a mine field at a later date.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman may have a valid point about relying only on the word "understood", but his amendment relies entirely on the use of that word. He rightly stresses the importance of translation for ethnic minority groups. Incidentally, such groups include not only people who come to this country from elsewhere, but many people born in this country for whom English is not their first language. That is crucial. After further reflection on that point, does he want to say anything about the new burdens principle and the cost of that translation service to some authorities, including his own?

Chris Grayling: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. Perhaps he did not hear me say that I was not talking only about those people who come to this country but also about people who are English nationals. There is no automatic assumption that people who are either naturalised Britons or who were born in this country have an excellent understanding, knowledge and use of the English language.
	It is entirely appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to refer to the new burdens principle. As I said during our discussion of the previous group of amendments, the Government need constantly to be mindful of new burdens. Whether we like it or not, it is certainly true that local authorities already carry a burden of translation as regards vast amounts, if not all, of their official documentation. There would be no exception in the circumstances that we are discussing.
	I would like to correct the hon. Gentleman in his remarks on the use of the word "understand". Understanding is part of the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold and his colleagues. The amendment still specifically provides either for someone to read or to have read to them the documentation relating to their case. There are thus three dimensions, not one.
	The Government's amendment relies specifically on understanding alone and casts aside the issue of reading. Surely it is right and proper that anyone entering into a legal agreement should have read it or have had it read to them, and should have clearly understood it. If that is not the case, far too many grey areas will be left open.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: No doubt my hon. Friend, with his local government experience, knows what will happen. Some of the most vulnerable people in our society will be wheeled in and given an offer. According to the terms of the Bill, they will have to sign a statement acknowledging that they have read and understood the offer. By its nature, that whole process is intimidatory. Housing officers are busy people. They are not likely to give the applicant much time, so we need to take the greatest possible care in respect of these provisions.

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for that cogent point on which the Minister would do well to reflect.
	There are important issues as regards literacy and the grey areas that frequently exist in debates over individual housing problems.

Andrew Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is the second Member to speak in favour of the amendment, but unfortunately I am still having some difficulty in understanding it. Even if I asked him to read it out I am not sure whether that would help me to understand it any better.
	Surely the crucial point is whether the person has understood the contents of the letter. It is not explanation that is important, as has been suggested. The issue is not about reading but about understanding. If people understand the letter, surely they will be able to make a decision.

Chris Grayling: I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that in the vast majority of cases in our daily lives when we encounter a terms and conditions document, we are supposed to tick a box to indicate that we have read and understood it. I suspect that, like me, he probably never bothers to read the terms and conditions document, and checks the box at the bottom of the page to move on. However, that document has legal force. If it says that one has no right to expect any service whatever from the person with whom one contracts, the law will fall on the side of that person. That is a fundamental issue in relation to the housing of people who are homeless or who are on the verge of becoming homeless. Very often, such people will not have a full grasp of the legal and regulatory issues, and it is surely right and proper that the law should at least ensure that they have read the terms and conditions document, or that it has been read to them, so that they know exactly what they are letting themselves in for.

Bill Wiggin: The Government have spent a huge amount of money on promoting adult literacy—indeed, there are radio advertisements about literacy gremlins. It is therefore tremendously important that terms and conditions should be read to people with literacy problems. I hope that my hon. Friend will continue to support that approach.

Chris Grayling: I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. Literacy is one of the three fundamental points, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold outlined, which means that to rely simply on the word "understanding" is, legally, too grey. Knowledge of the English language or lack of it affects many of the people who have come to this country or who live in this country, besides many of our ethnic minority groups, which includes many of those who are most affected by the issues in this Bill. There are also those cases that present a potential for a dispute between an applicant and an authority. All those are realities.
	The amendment in lieu goes some way to addressing pitfalls down the road for local authorities—pitfalls that are not addressed by the Lords amendment. I hope that the Minister will change her mind and allow the amendment in lieu to be made.

Mark Field: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). This amendment represents a belt and braces approach. Perhaps I would understand if the Minister read the whole Bill out to me, but I still do not understand and appreciate her statement that the Lords amendment, which deletes two words, improves matters. I cannot see how that can be the case. However, I appreciate entirely that there is a thought in the Minister's mind that there may be a correct process to follow, particularly in London, where many people speak English not even as a second but as a third or fourth language.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extraordinary that the Lords accepted precisely the amendment that we are now being asked to reverse?

Mark Field: That was going to be my second point. It concerns me not least because the Conservative spokesmen in the Lords have local government experience in London, where there are clear and understandable concerns that people who do not speak English as a first language need to have such a statement read to them as a belt and braces approach to make sure that they understand it. Such people must understand the implications for their housing situation of declining an offer. I am perplexed about how the Minister can come to the view that by removing two words the rights of the most vulnerable in our society—who are homeless—will be safeguarded. I also share the constitutional concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold. If the Lords discussed and proposed the amendment that we are suggesting in lieu, why was the deletion made in amendment No. 2 accepted?

Sally Keeble: There has been a lot of discussion about not very much, and hon. Members will need to read and understand the Hansard record of the debate. I shall not deal in turn with each of the hon. Members who has spoken because they all said similar things, and they all agreed with what I said previously, which is that people should understand their position, what it means for them to get an offer and, more importantly, what will happen when they accept or refuse the offer.
	It was originally proposed that people should read and understand the statement. Lords amendment No. 2 simply requires them to understand the statement, and the means by which they come to understand it should be left to the judgment of local authorities. Both the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that the Government should come up with strategies to ensure that people understand the statement and they helpfully suggested some, including the use of an appropriate language. The hon. Member for Cotswold also said, with menace, that the statement should be explained to people very nicely until they understand it. Both hon. Members made it clear that they understand completely what it means to take people through the terms of a document so that they understand it.
	The amendment in lieu, tabled by Conservative Members, would mean that the statement must be read by the person concerned or read to him, and understood. The Government believe that that would restrict the strategies that could be adopted to ensure that people understand the statement.

Mark Field: Does the hon. Lady appreciate that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 contains similar safeguards, which ensure that any statement made by a defendant is not only understood by him but read out to him before he signs it?

Sally Keeble: We are discussing how to ensure that someone understands what is meant by a housing offer. As several Conservative Members and the hon. Member for Bath have said, these are complex issues that people need to discuss in detail. That is why we proposed that there should be a burden on the local authority to ensure that people understand the housing offer and the consequences of their decision to accept or reject it. It should be left to the local authority to make arrangements as to the methods by which people acquire that understanding, whether it be by reading the statement themselves, having it read to them in English or, if different, their mother tongue or having it explained to them gently step by step as the hon. Member for Cotswold recommended.
	Although some Conservative Members keep saying that they have been in the House only a short time, they show every sign of understanding that it is a big issue to take a person through the process of receiving a housing offer and making a decision. That is why we tabled the amendment in the other place. It arose from debate in the other place, and had not been raised earlier in this place. It is an improvement because it will not restrict housing officers to one or other means of making sure that people understand the process; it will place on local authorities the burden of ensuring that understanding.

Chris Grayling: Will the Minister give way?

Sally Keeble: Yes, but we have gone over the issue a few times and I have set out clearly the available choices.

Chris Grayling: Does the Minister realise that her approach places the burden of responsibility for explanation entirely on the shoulders of the housing officer without requiring applicants to take responsibility for themselves? Amendment (a) would provide an appropriate balance of responsibility between the two.

Sally Keeble: The burden of responsibility lies with the people concerned because they have to decide what to do about an offer. Their choice has to be informed, however, and on that basis it is important that people understand the process, what is happening and the consequences. That is why the Lords amendment No. 2 has been couched in terms that place a duty on local authorities to ensure that people understand. My winding-up note merely repeats that.

Don Foster: Perhaps I can help the Minister with her winding-up speech. Will she give a categorical assurance that the burden of responsibility will be on the local authority housing department to ensure that applicants fully understand what is put before them? Will she also assure us that guidance will be provided to each local authority on a range of strategies that they are expected to use in different circumstances to ensure that that happens, including reading the document to applicants, translating it to their mother tongue, having an independent expert explain it to them or, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, taking them through it step by step?

Sally Keeble: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the purpose of Lords amendment No. 2 is to place a duty on the local authority housing officer to ensure that applicants understand what is happening. I also assure him that guidance will be introduced. However, I cannot give a date for that or be specific about the range options that it will include because that would be restrictive.
	We have had a good discussion on the different methods available to ensure that someone understands the process. It is in everyone's interest, including that of the local authority, to ensure that applicants understand what they are doing and the consequences of their decisions. As all hon. Members know, if someone does not understand what is happening, they complain or appeal.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We have had a—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not realise that the hon. Gentleman had spoken. He cannot speak again.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order either to oppose the amendments or to agree to them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am advised that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to this group of amendments so he does not have the right to speak again. The debate has come to its conclusion.

Question put, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment:—
	The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 97.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

After clause 11
	 — 
	A new clause

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	The issue of accommodation for children in need and their families under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 has arisen repeatedly during the consideration of this Bill, both in this House and in another place. It is an important issue—probably the most important that we will discuss this evening—and will also be considered in relation to the Adoption and Children Bill. Lords amendment No. 3 will address the central concern—namely, it must be clear that social services authorities have the power to provide accommodation for children and their families under section 17 of the 1989 Act. There is also the separate question of ensuring good co-operation between the housing and social service departments in working to meet the needs of such children and their families.
	The Minister for Housing and Planning, my noble Friend Lord Falconer, has met a number of social services directors and was impressed by their arrangements to ensure that their department works together with the housing authority—or housing department, in the case of unitary authorities—to find an appropriate solution for the whole family when dealing with families with children who are intentionally homeless or ineligible for housing assistance.
	Lords amendment No. 3 would ensure that all local authorities adopt similar co-operative arrangements. The amendment, which would insert a new section, 213A, in the Housing Act 1996, would require housing authorities to have arrangements in place to ensure that social services authorities were made aware when a housing authority was dealing with an applicant whose household included a child under age the age of 18 and had reason to believe that the applicant might be homeless—or threatened with homelessness—intentionally, or might be ineligible for housing assistance. The housing authority would also have to inform the social services department of the decision taken on the homelessness application. These requirements would be subject to the applicant's consent, although withholding consent would not affect the housing authority's ability to alert the social services authority in any case when it was concerned that a child might be at risk of suffering significant harm.
	Lords amendment No. 3 would also place a new duty on housing authorities. They would have to provide advice and assistance to the social services authorities where the latter were aware of a decision by a housing authority that a household that includes a child under 18 was unintentionally homeless, or threatened with homelessness, or ineligible for housing assistance and the social services authority asked for assistance in the exercise of its functions under part III of the Children Act 1989. That new duty would not prejudice the current provisions on co-operation between authorities in section 27 of the 1989 Act.
	Lords amendment No. 3 would also place a requirement on unitary authorities to have similar arrangements in place. They would have to ensure that, subject to the applicant's consent, the facts of such cases and the decision on the homelessness application were referred to the social services department by the housing department. They would also have to ensure that the housing department provided advice and assistance, such as is reasonable in the circumstances, to the social services department on request.
	As my noble Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning undertook to do in another place, my Department and the Department of Health propose to issue joint guidance to housing and social services departments about co-operative working in the context of the new provisions. The provisions should ensure greater safeguards for families with children and address some of the issues that were debated at some length on Second Reading and Report. I am sure that hon. Members will have no hesitation in endorsing these actions, and I urge them to support Lords amendment No. 3.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Lords amendment No. 3 is a new clause, to be inserted in the Bill after clause 11. On a minor administrative note, I am not sure why it has been inserted after clause 11, which deals with appeals, when it would have been better placed after clause 8 on the review of decisions as to suitability of accommodation. Such an administrative problem arises because this is a new area that was not discussed when the Bill was previously debated on the Floor of the House or in Committee. This provision has been debated in the House of Lords and is now inserted in the Bill in the form of a new clause. Having said that, we broadly welcome the new clause, although we have a number of reservations that I should like to raise with the Minister.
	The new clause would strengthen the current duty on housing and social services authorities—housing and social services departments in unitary authorities—to co-operate when a family will not be provided with accommodation under the main homelessness duty and children are involved. Such a situation most commonly occurs when a family is found to be intentionally homeless or when they are ineligible for assistance due to their immigration status.
	The new clause specifies that the housing authority must, with the applicant's consent, inform the social services authority about the facts of the case and, at an early opportunity, notify it of its subsequent decision. The new clause also requires the housing authority to provide such advice and assistance as is reasonable in the circumstances in helping the social services authority exercise its function to children in need under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 when requested to do so.
	Such a power already exists in the 1989 Act. Section 20(1) provides:
	"Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of"
	certain reasons. Subsection (3) provides:
	"Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who has reached the age of sixteen and whose welfare the authority consider is likely to be seriously prejudiced if they do not provide him with accommodation."
	Section 22(1) states:
	"In this Act, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority is a reference to a child who is
	(a) in their care; or
	(b) provided with accommodation by the authority in the exercise of any functions".
	Given that such a power is already enshrined in law, why is the new clause necessary? It will ensure that social services co-operate with housing authorities, but they already have to do so under the 1989 Act.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman may be able to help me. My understanding is that the Children Act 1989 requires social services to provide housing for the children, not the entire family. That is the nature of the amendment that I understand the Government intend to make.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: That is precisely the point—the new clause deals with the children. As the duties of the local authority are already enshrined in the Children Act, I cannot see the necessity of the new clause. The only reason for it that I can see is that it will make social services and housing departments work more closely together. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that.
	It is relatively easy for social services and housing departments to work together closely in a unitary authority. However, when a county authority provides the social services and a borough or district council provides housing functions, two councils will have to have mechanisms for dealing with each other. There will be an awful lot of people producing bits of paper and watching their back in case one or other council are sued.
	Something might be fine as an ideal, but once it is enshrined in law, the compliance cost can be significant. We do not think that the Government will allocate sufficient funds to local authorities to enable them to implement the provisions properly and that the burden will fall on council tax payers. Can the Minister give us an idea of the compliance cost of implementing the new clause? What mechanisms will need to be put in place in district and borough council housing authorities and county council social services authorities? What protocols and disciplines will need to be put in place to make the new clause work?
	Having said that, we welcome the Government's recognition of the need to protect children, particularly those intentionally made homeless, and often through no fault of their own. Excellent work is being done by some housing associations in dealing specifically with vulnerable children. I visited the Cirencester young person's housing association the other day, and met a young constituent of mine who had been abused by his parents. Through a friend, he secured a place in a little house provided by that association, which is divided into several separate bedrooms for such children. He is obviously flourishing and will eventually be able to move to a flat of his own. Housing authorities are becoming cleverer at dealing with such people, and we need to provide them with more support.
	We need to be clear about where the Government will place such people in their list of priority needs. How will that list dovetail with local housing authorities' strategy on homelessness?

Andrew Love: The philosophy at the centre of the Children Act 1989 is that the child should be the first priority. Everyone would assume that, in most cases, the best way for such children to be brought up is for them to remain with their natural parents. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that bringing together social services and housing is the best way to ensure that housing authorities are aware of that priority?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I accept the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I am probing the Minister as to how that will work in practice. We have all heard of shocking cases of children falling through the net and being abused. The West case, which occurred in my constituency, was one of the worst in history. Obvious mistakes were made, but having discussed the matter in detail with Gloucestershire social services, I am sure that such a thing is unlikely to happen today. Let us all hope and pray that it cannot. We welcome the amendment in principle, but we want to see how it will work.
	The amendment makes it clear that social services can act only with the consent of the applicant. Again, the question is one of understanding and of who said what at a particular time. For example, what will happen if a child, for whatever reason—they might be fearful or might not understand what is going on—does not give consent for social services to act on their behalf? The child could still be vulnerable, but the import of the amendment will be circumvented if they do not wish to give consent. What will happen in such situations?
	If local government is to be reorganised along more regional lines, will regional assemblies have a role in this matter? The sharing of such responsibilities between a plethora of local government tiers would lead to increasing difficulties. I ask the Minister to explain, when she winds up the debate, how the amendment will work in practice.

Glenda Jackson: I seem to be speaking to an entirely different amendment from the one that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) has just defined. My hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the amendment will ensure that a child cannot be taken away from its family under the current statutory requirements of the Children Act 1989. If, for a variety of reasons, a family is deemed intentionally homeless, it will be the duty of the housing authority, working closely with social services, to ensure that the family can be kept together. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the amendment deals with abused children, but I suspect that they are already protected under the 1989 Act. I am aware of only one instance in which someone who was in desperate need of housing refused to approach the local housing authority because that person had been told that its response would be to place the children in care. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is aware of a growing belief—I speak from my direct experience in London—that if a family with children are deemed to have become intentionally homeless, the housing authority's first step will be to contact social services to take the children into care. I understand that the amendment would prevent that.
	Close working between the social services and housing departments—I am happy to say that such a relationship between the departments already exists in Camden—that will have a responsibility to assist such families means that the family will not be marooned and left to attempt to find their own housing and that children will not be taken into care. Children should be taken into care if there is clear evidence that they are being abused or are in danger within the family, but they should not be put into care simply because of a shortage of housing.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Lady will realise that no hon. Member would wish to see children taken into care purely for housing reasons, but surely she recognises that in some cases—happily small in number—a social issue that could lead to a child being taken into care comes to light only because of a housing issue. The housing department may be the first to get wind of a problem.

Glenda Jackson: I have already told the House that I have had only one direct experience of someone who refused to approach their local authority because they believed that their children would be taken into care. I am not clear about the case that the hon. Gentleman makes. I have already said that if clear evidence shows that a child—whether homeless or not—is in danger from their family, for whatever reason, social services have a responsibility to act. However, if the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the danger to the child was the fact that the family had nowhere to live and that the child should be taken from an otherwise caring family and put into care, I would strongly disagree. It is my perception that the amendment would ensure that that could not happen.

Chris Grayling: I do not wish to describe the case I mentioned in detail, for obvious reasons, but a social issue that should have led social services to question whether to take a child into care arose only because of a housing-related matter being dealt with by the housing department. That is a very specific example.

Glenda Jackson: The hon. Gentleman makes the case for much closer working between housing and social services departments. I know from my experience of my local authority that such close working already takes place. When housing families, local authorities should work more closely not only with the Department of Health—as my hon. Friend the Minister said—but with education departments. It is almost impossible for local authorities in Greater London to rehouse every family within their own borders, so they must work closely with all the boroughs within the London conurbation.
	I welcome the amendment. It will do much to allay the genuine or perceived fears of family members—not all local authorities have Camden's excellent record—and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to disseminate its contents, even before the Bill receives Royal Assent, to local authorities that have not yet introduced closer working between social services and housing departments. Families should not fear that if they present themselves their children will be taken from them and put into care, and they will still be homeless. That can create enormous tensions and strains in a family and, inevitably, it is the children who suffer.

Don Foster: The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is right that there has been relatively little discussion during the passage of the Bill of children and homelessness. Today, we have already heard about the many homeless households, and recognise that a large proportion of them live in inappropriate temporary accommodation. Indeed, many homeless households live in extremely inappropriate bed and breakfast accommodation. We must recognise that those households include many children. The recently published Shelter report "No Room to Play: Children and Homelessness" states:
	"More than 100,000 children in England become homeless every year."
	It is therefore right that the House should address concerns about the support that legislation can provide for such children.
	The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) rightly hoped that the Lords amendment would go a long way towards addressing some of the current problems. We must recognise that there are already many examples of good practice, whereby local authority housing departments and social services departments work together to meet the needs of homeless children and their families. However, that is not true of all local authorities, so we should include in the Bill a requirement that all local authority housing and social services departments co-operate in a way already practised by the very best departments.
	I therefore welcome the Lords amendment, but I am conscious that it will not solve all the problems. During deliberation on the amendments in another place, reference was made to difficulties resulting from the Children Act 1989 and a number of court cases and judgments that have led to homeless families being under threat of their children being taken into care. I understand that the Government have made a clear commitment to reverse the effect of those judgments by amending the Children Act through an amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill. I should be grateful for an assurance from the Minister that that remains the Government's intention and an explanation of the way in which the change will be introduced.
	I am conscious that the Lords amendment will require sensitive handling by social services departments. If a local authority social services department is to become involved, the agreement of the family concerned will be required, so sensitivity is essential. In another place, Lord Falconer said on 24 January at column 152 that he fully accepted the need for sensitivity and gave an assurance that appropriate guidance would be issued on the way in which that sensitivity would be exercised by local authorities. I should be grateful if the Minister told the House a little more about Government intentions on that guidance. 6.45 pm
	The issue is important, but it is wrong of the hon. Member for Cotswold to suggest that there has been no deliberation on it during the Bill's passage. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that on a number of occasions in Committee I spoke to amendments I had tabled, expressing considerable concern about, for example, a parent's behaviour leading to a family being refused priority housing. Lord Falconer and the Minister expressed concern about that, and promised to amend the Bill. I am delighted that as a result of subsequent deliberation, Lords amendment No. 3 was tabled, but by itself it will not be sufficient to meet all the concerns of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate. I hope that the Minister will give us assurances and guarantees that the amendments to which I have already referred will be made.

Chris Grayling: I should like to raise three issues, the first of which relates to the concerns that I outlined in relation to the first group of Lords amendments.
	The new clause proposed in Lords amendment No. 3 has the admirable aspiration of providing protection for children in families who become intentionally homeless. I very much agree with many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson), who spoke about the importance of protecting children in such circumstances. However, there will be times when the reasons for a family becoming intentionally homeless lead to significant attention from social services departments regarding the nature of the family and their suitability to care for their children. God forbid that that should happen frequently, but it should necessarily involve close collaboration between social services departments and housing departments.
	The essence of what the new clause proposes already occurs in the vast majority of local authorities as a matter of course. Undoubtedly, some local authorities do not come up to scratch but, as one of my local authorities says, "We do it anyway as a matter of course." If there is a problem case, the authority always talks to social services about the issues surrounding it. I should hate an admirable provision to impose an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on the best authorities. I therefore repeat my question to the Minister: what processes will be imposed on housing officers and social services departments to deliver the requirements of the new clause? What specific requirements will she place on officers, and what additional paperwork will they have to deal with? In particular, what burden of regulation, supervision and assessment will be placed on authorities as a result of the new clause?
	When the Minister responds to our debate, will she give an assurance that she will not allow the imposition of new processes to make the life of the better local authority officers more difficult than it is at the moment? As we all know, anyone who has any contact with, or knowledge of, local government knows how hard-pressed many of our local government officers are. I should hate a well meaning and well thought-out new clause to be implemented in a way that made matters much worse for them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) rightly said, there are resource implications, which often involve time rather than money. The Government need to be mindful of them as they set about implementing the Lords amendment, particularly in areas not covered by unitary authorities, where the social services department and the housing authority are miles apart and it is not simply a question of having a conversation down the corridor. Those organisations have contact points, but they lack the benefit afforded by unitary authorities of sitting within the same management structure in the same building.
	There are two other specific issues that I would like the Minister to address when she replies, one of which involves the use of the word "assistance". A local housing officer has expressed concern to me. What does the word mean in this context? There is some concern within the profession that in reality social services will be given the right to resubmit an application to the housing department with a heavy lean in favour of it being accepted. That led to the comment, "If that is to be the case, if social services will become the arbiter in these matters, we will not bother to declare anyone intentionally homeless in the first place."
	What are the requirements for the housing department in providing not only advice but practical assistance to the social services department in the implementation of these provisions? I focus on that point because it has a resource implication for many small district councils. If a county council's social services department is able to say, "No, these decisions are not right, you need to house these people", when the district council has decreed that the people concerned are intentionally homeless, the district council will end up in some instances funding accommodation, when under current legislation it would not be doing so. The Government should be mindful of that as they push through the amendment.
	Secondly, I ask the Minister to be watchful of unitary authorities. The division between unitary and non-unitary authorities is not quite as clear cut as it would seem. An example within my constituency highlights that point. The Preston estate in Tadworth is one of the problem areas of Surrey. It is an area of some deprivation and there are significant social problems. The estate is divided between three different housing authorities. It is covered by a fourth authority, which provides the social services input. The estate itself is controlled one third by the London borough of Sutton, one third by Merton and one third by Reigate and Banstead. Surrey county council provides social services at present.
	London boroughs such as Sutton or Merton have the vast majority of their housing stock within their own borders. The small offshoots that for historical reasons they control can often be easily forgotten. I suspect that the Minister would find quite a significant number of unitary authorities that have social services and housing under one roof but which have some property outside their boundaries. As she proceeds to implement this legislation, she will find that there is not always a split between the unitary authority and the non-unitary authority, which is articulated in the new clause. The clause suggests that for a unitary authority everything is under the same roof, but that is not the case.
	The Government must be careful about the way in which they frame regulations and guidance notes. They must ensure that areas that do not fall within the boundaries of unitary authorities do not slip through the net because no one thinks clearly about their presence. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as the Bill becomes law and as the Department begins to implement it.
	I welcome the principle behind the amendment. It is admirable that we should provide proper protection for children. However, I hope that the Minister will take care to ensure that implementation works with rather than against local authorities.

Sally Keeble: I shall try to answer all the queries that have been raised. However, some of them involve quite detailed, complex legal issues. If hon. Members still have concerns after my response, I shall ensure that they are dealt with in writing. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) raised a particular case, and it should be considered in some detail outside this general discussion.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is not right when he says that the issue before us has not been discussed clearly. The general principles and concerns that underpin the discussion have been some of the most hotly contested points in our discussions as the Bill has passed through its various stages.
	The central issue is the welfare of families with children, not children on their own. It is about the interrelationship between homelessness legislation and legislation that affects children. At the same time, there is a series of complex issues. The issue was probably first raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) and by Shelter, which held out the prospect that if we got things wrong, or if we got the relationship wrong between responsibility under the Children Act 1989 and homelessness legislation, we would see a return to the days of "Cathy Come Home", when families were split up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, homelessness would be a recipe for children ending up in care in those circumstances. We must deal with the issues that revolve round the family.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold and others will remember that we had much discussion on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the possibility of amending in part the Children Act 1989. There was also much discussion about the fact that despite the test cases—the ones to which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was referring—and despite various assertions to the contrary, the power remained for social services, in considering the welfare of the family or of the child, also to promote the upbringing of the child by his or her family. During these discussions arguments were advanced by myself and by my noble Friend Lord Falconer in another place.
	That was one of the key responsibilities. The knock-on effect of that was that of providing housing for a family, and not only for the individual child. It was the families with children who were intentionally homeless under the Act that did not qualify under housing legislation and homelessness legislation.
	We are dealing with one of the most important amendments that we will consider this evening. It puts in place arrangements to make existing powers work properly. It is right that such powers are in place. It is also correct that some local authorities are already doing what we would wish. I stressed in my opening remarks that we have examined best practice and what local authorities are doing when they have to deal with these matters. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that other authorities act in the same way. I hope that explains from where the amendment has come.
	Families that might be affected by the intentionality rules will be, for example, those who have been evicted for rent arrears or antisocial behaviour. The children of such families are vulnerable. I am sure that there are hon. Members who are familiar with such cases from their advice surgeries.
	The hon. Member for Cotswold asked about consent and the consent of the child. That is not the issue that is before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate was right when she said that we are not talking about specific issues that involve children being taken into care and housed. We are talking about the housing of families with children, and that is made clear in the amendment. If the hon. Gentleman reads the proposed section 213A(1), he will see that it refers to
	"where a local housing authority have reason to believe that an applicant with whom a person under the age of 18 normally resides".
	That is basically a family with children.
	The issue of consent involves the exchange of information between two different departments or two different local authorities. The new clause deals with that and with the specific circumstances in which the social services or housing department makes an exemption where a child may be at risk. That is perfectly proper and in line with all the standard procedures and legislation affecting local authorities. I hope that that deals with the concerns of the hon. Member for Cotswold.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate spoke about the dissemination of information to local authorities. My noble Friend Lord Falconer and I have repeatedly discussed the powers of local authorities and their responsibilities under the existing legislation, which have not changed, despite the test cases known to my hon. Friend. I hope that we have already clarified the position, but steps will be taken to ensure that the information is properly disseminated. A further issue is the extent to which people know their rights. That comes down to advice and assistance, which we have discussed.
	The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) spoke about an amendment under the Adoption and Children Bill. That is a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I shall not tread on their toes. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a great deal of discussion about the matter. I pay tribute to his own role, and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, who has pursued the issue vociferously, because of its importance for her constituency and also because of her concerns about child welfare in general.

Don Foster: The Minister said that she did not wish to tread on other people's toes, and I understand that. Will she confirm that she agrees with her noble Friend Lord Falconer, who said that
	"the critical issue is to ensure that the social services directorate has power, when appropriate, to house the family and not only the children. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Health said in the Commons, on 17th January, and to which I referred on Report, we"—
	presumably meaning the Government—
	"have undertaken to bring forward amendments to the Adoption and Children Bill to address that issue"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 January 2002; Vol. 631, c. 152.]
	Can the Minister confirm to the House that it is still the Government's intention to do that?

Sally Keeble: My noble Friend and I have spoken repeatedly about the matter, on which we agree completely. We are as one. We have discussed in detail the complexities of this part of the legislation.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell spoke again about aspirations and what the process would be. The new clause is all about process. It is all about making sure that the families do not slip between two departments or two local authorities, as often happens. The new clause will make sure that the two departments or the two local authorities communicate. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are some local authorities that do that extremely well, there are cases in which it will require something of a culture change to get two local authorities to talk to each other. The new clause will ensure that that happens, in the best interests of the families and the children concerned.
	The hon. Gentleman says that that happens in his local authority, which is excellent, but it clearly does not happen in every local authority, given the anxieties that have been raised by Shelter, voluntary organisations and hon. Members about what happens to children or families when they are batted about between pillar and post. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said, such families are often afraid that the children will be taken into care, so they are unable to access the kind of housing that is their right.
	It would be worth the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and other hon. Members checking the procedures and protocols in their own local authorities or between the local authorities in their areas, to make sure that such cases are dealt with. There is a small number of cases, but they are difficult.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell also asked about assistance. That relates to the various bits of legislation to which I referred earlier. We are not discussing the ability of a social services department to reverse a housing department's decision. The decision taken by the housing department involves intentionality, vulnerability, priority needs and so on, under the housing legislation. There is no question of the social services department saying that the housing department has got it wrong, if the family is intentionally homeless.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Sally Keeble: No. I am in the middle of replying, and I might forget what I intended to say.
	Responsibility for housing in that instance rests with social services. Different legislation applies, so the provision for assistance and advice does not mean that the clients get passed from one department to the other. The social services department exercises its powers under the relevant legislation. The issue is how different departments or local authorities work together to realise that. Having completed my reply, I give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister. Can she say how the new clause will work in practice? It deals with those who are intentionally homeless and have children under the age of 18. The hon. Lady gave the example of people who are grossly in arrears of rent or who are subject to antisocial behaviour problems. Given the scarcity of housing resources, will such people have priority over people in a similar situation or people who are unintentionally homeless, but who have otherwise behaved perfectly properly?

Sally Keeble: We are discussing a small group of people, who are not being housed under the homelessness legislation. Because they are intentionally homeless, the powers rest with social services, which wants to promote the upbringing of the child by his family. The aim is therefore to keep the family together. I thought that I had explained that. The new clause sets out in detail how that will be achieved. It specifies the joint protocols and the level of contact and liaison that is necessary between the different departments or local authorities to make sure that that happens. The process is exactly what the new clause is about. It does not mean that one group of people leapfrogs over another on the housing list because it is being catered for by social services.

Karen Buck: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being in the Chamber earlier. I warmly welcome the new clause. Subject to the further underpinning of it, as we have discussed, it shows that the Government have listened and taken note of the problem. One of the ways in which the new clause may be implemented by local authorities is that it will allow a social services department to put time and sometimes a small sum of money into accessing a private tenancy for families who do not have the resources or the ability to access their own accommodation. In that way, social services departments may be able to help, as my hon. Friend said, without such families going back into the housing department system that has already failed them.

Sally Keeble: There are a number of ways in which the powers can be exercised. The main point that I was making to the Opposition is that the powers are exercised by social services, not by the housing department. The procedure is slightly different because it is not under housing legislation. As the housing department and the authority will have responsibility for the homelessness strategy and will know where the housing is, they will be in a position to assist. I am told that they will be able to provide assistance, within the normal meaning of the word, to social services in exercising their powers. I take the point about properties that are located in other areas. Clearly, the issue will have to be taken into account. Of course, when families enter the system, they will be dealt with by social services, as their position will be considered under the Children Act 1989.

Chris Grayling: In a borough that has a housing block in another area, it is conceivable that the natural instinct of the unitary authority will be to turn to its own social services department when a particular problem arises, even though the department covering the geographic area containing the block may have a much greater knowledge of local circumstances and about how to deal with the issue.

Sally Keeble: I take that point and I shall ensure that it is addressed.
	I think that I have dealt with the details and technicalities of this difficult but extremely important area. I am absolutely sure that the amendment will improve the Bill and the safeguards that are provided. In particular, it will improve the safeguards for one of our most vulnerable groups—families who are intentionally homeless, in relation to whom the interests of the child must be carefully considered and proper arrangements made. I am very pleased indeed that it has been possible to bring the amendment from the other place and I urge all hon. Members to support it.
	Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 15
	 — 
	Allocation schemes

Lords amendment: No. 4.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7.

Sally Keeble: Amendment No. 4 is a minor drafting amendment. The Bill gives local housing authorities powers to take account of unacceptable behaviour when making decisions about applicants for the allocation of housing. Clause 13 constructs a test of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make the applicant unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. Where an authority has decided that an applicant is guilty of such behaviour, it will either have power under clause 13 to decide to treat them as ineligible for an allocation altogether, or it may decide to treat them as eligible but not to give them any preference under clause 15.
	The policy intention is that the test of unacceptable behaviour should be exactly the same whether it is a basis for treating a person as ineligible or for deciding that he or she does not deserve to be given any preference. The test is deliberately constructed to be a very high one and it incorporates two main elements: first, the authority must be satisfied that the applicant or a member of his household has been guilty of unacceptable behaviour; and secondly, in the circumstances when the case is considered, it must be satisfied either that the applicant is unsuitable to be a tenant or that he deserves not to be given reasonable preference by reason of that unacceptable behaviour.
	The qualification
	"by reason of that behaviour",
	which the amendment inserts in the clause, is essential to ensure that authorities do not have a broad power to decide to treat applicants as ineligible or not to give preference for reasons that are not linked to the unacceptable behaviour. The qualification appears in clause 13 in new section 160A(7)(b) to the Housing Act 1996. The provision deals with the treatment of an applicant as ineligible for an allocation, but was omitted from clause 15, which deals with the treatment of an applicant as deserving not to be given any preference. The amendment would merely insert that qualification in the clause and ensure that the provisions on unacceptable behaviour are clear and symmetrical.
	As I said, clause 13 allows an authority to decide to treat an applicant as ineligible for an allocation because it is satisfied that he is guilty of unacceptable behaviour that is serious enough to make him unsuitable to be a tenant of the authority. When an authority is satisfied that an applicant is unsuitable to be its tenant, it may decide to treat him as ineligible or instead to consider his application but not give any preference for an allocation. As the Bill stands, the authority must notify the applicant of a decision to treat him as ineligible and of the grounds on which it has been made. With regard to a decision not to give preference, applicants have the right to ask to be informed, but the authority is not required to notify them unless it is requested to do so.
	In another place—and, indeed, in this place at an earlier stage—there was pressure for an amendment to require authorities to notify applicants about such decisions. Unfortunately—this is where the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) was misguided—the proposal's construction meant that it would also have required authorities to notify applicants about routine decisions taken about the facts of their application. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Gentleman is very entertained and is about to say that he was right all along. That is not the case. The Government reflected on the points that were raised in debate about his amendment. We saw the force of the argument that in areas where pressure on housing is high a decision not to give preference could have the same practical effect as a decision to treat an applicant as ineligible; that is to say, it could remove any realistic opportunity of his being allocated accommodation. [Interruption.] Again, the hon. Gentleman indicates that he is right. We have shown simply that the Government are prepared to listen and cherry-pick his amendments so as to take the good bits while still rejecting the wider and totally impractical elements.
	The additional requirement should not add significantly to authorities' work load. We anticipate that, overall, only a small proportion of applicants will receive such decisions and our understanding is that the local authority associations support this proposal. The Government have therefore decided that authorities should be required to notify the applicant when they decide not to give any preference because of unacceptable behaviour, but they will not be required to deal with the confetti of decision papers that the amendment of the hon. Member for Bath would have required. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 7 will help to achieve those effects. I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: We heard a lot in Committee about the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) sending his wife postcards when his amendments succeeded. I have no doubt that his wife will be receiving a postcard in the morning. Tribute where tribute is due: he pushed the matter in Committee and it is now being dealt with.
	The official Opposition broadly welcome the amendments. For too long, tenants who have exhibited patterns of unacceptable behaviour have been given preference when other people who have behaved perfectly properly are disadvantaged thereby. We welcome the amendments and the fact that the inconsistency between clauses 13 and 15 is being done away with, and the requirement for the local authority to notify people for whom preference has been withdrawn because of unacceptable behaviour.
	I have one question for the Minister: what will happen in relation to the Data Protection Act 1998? Will one authority be able to give information on unacceptable behaviour to another authority so that it can judge how to treat people when handling preference?

Don Foster: May I thank the Minister for accepting at long last the amendments that I tabled many months ago and tidying them up in the way that she has described? I am sure that honour is now satisfied and that at least a brief postcard can now go to Mrs. Foster.

Sally Keeble: I shall be brief, so perhaps it will be just half a postcard. [Interruption.] That is for the hon. Member for Bath and his wife to settle between them.
	In relation to data protection, I was trying to envisage the circumstances in which such a situation would arise. As people would normally make applications to separate housing authorities, I cannot seriously think that it is an issue, but I shall check to make sure.
	I urge hon. Members to support the amendment.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 5 to 7 agreed to.

Schedule 1
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Lords amendment: No. 8.

Sally Keeble: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 14.

Sally Keeble: The amendments are complex, so I shall introduce them with some care. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me.
	During consideration in another place, attention was drawn to gaps in the existing provisions, which give the local authority the power to accommodate certain applicants pending a review by the authority of its homelessness decision and pending an appeal to the county court on a point of law.
	The policy that underlies the current provisions is that pending a review by the local authority or an appeal to the county court, the authority should have the power to accommodate applicants who have a priority need for accommodation—that is, those who are most vulnerable. We think that that is the right policy, and it accords with the central thrust of the Bill; that only this group are owed the main homelessness duty to secure accommodation.
	An assessment of the current provisions reveals two main gaps in the achievement of that policy, however. The first applies in respect of those applicants who have a priority need, but are considered by the authority to have become homeless, or be threatened with homelessness, intentionally and who, for whatever reason, were not provided with accommodation under the section 188 interim duty pending inquiries. That will include, for example, priority need applicants who were threatened with homelessness pending the inquiries and so did not need to be provided with accommodation. Where the authority finds that they became threatened with homelessness intentionally, the applicant may request a review of that decision and may become homeless during the course of the review. However, at present the authority has no power to accommodate in such circumstances.
	The second gap applies more broadly to applicants who are pursuing an appeal to the county court. The current provisions—namely, those in section 204 of the Housing Act 1996—leave some doubt as to whether there is a power to accommodate applicants if the authority has not already exercised its power to accommodate pending the review.
	Amendment No. 12 will close the first gap and provide authorities with a specific power to assist applicants who the authority have decided have priority needs but have become threatened with homelessness intentionally. The power will allow the authority to take steps to prevent homelessness or, if the applicant actually becomes homeless, to secure accommodation, pending a review of the homelessness decision.
	Amendment No. 14 amends section 204 of the 1996 Act and makes it clear that, pending an appeal to the county court, the authority has a power to accommodate the same categories of applicant as it has a power to accommodate pending a review. It includes a specific reference to the new power provided by amendment No. 12. Amendment No. 14 also makes it clear that the power to accommodate an applicant pending an appeal to the county court applies whether or not the power to accommodate pending a review had been exercised.
	Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 amend sections 188(3) and 200(5) respectively. Those provisions give authorities the power to continue to secure accommodation for certain applicants pending a review. The concept of being able to continue to secure accommodation limits the scope of power and is unduly restrictive. Amendments Nos. 8 and 13 therefore change that to a freestanding power to secure accommodation.
	The change to section 188(3) will clarify in particular that, pending a review, authorities have the power to accommodate applicants who have priority need but have been found to be intentionally homeless. Under section 190(2)(a), such applicants must be secured accommodation for such a period as will give them a reasonable opportunity to find accommodation themselves, but that duty may end before a review of the homelessness decision has been completed. There is currently some uncertainty as to whether authorities have a power to accommodate that category of applicant during the period after the section 190(2)(a) duty has ended and until the review is completed. That is because there is no explicit provision giving a power to continue to accommodate under section 190, and it is questionable whether the power to continue to accommodate under section 188 should apply in a case where the applicant is being accommodated under section 190.
	I should add that the local authority representative bodies were consulted and are content with the thrust of the amendments. They do not add new burdens or provisions, but largely clarify, rationalise and consolidate powers that currently exist in a variety of different places.
	I hope that hon. Members agree that the amendments close the current gaps and achieve the right policy, and I commend them to the House.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I challenge the Minister to repeat what she just said without notes.

Sally Keeble: indicated assent

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As she says, these are technical amendments. Although they are complex, we broadly welcome them. They clarify the powers that are available to local authorities to accommodate applicants pending review or appeal of the homeless decision, and they respond to concerns raised by the Housing Law Practitioners Association.
	As this is the last time we will be able to speak on the Bill, I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the official Opposition wish the Bill good speed and hope that it will be placed on the statute book with all possible alacrity. It is needed, because homelessness is a pressing problem that affects people in the greatest need of help in our society.
	I press the Government to bring forward their homelessness strategy and to introduce the statutory instrument on priority need and a Bill licensing houses in multiple occupation. Those are all essential strands of the Government's strategy for dealing with this ever- increasing problem.
	Finally, I pay tribute to all those who have provided the Opposition with assistance and advice, especially Shelter, which has provided invaluable advice and has made our debate much better informed—which has, I hope, contributed to a much better Bill.

Don Foster: I, too, welcome the amendments, which plug several gaps that were identified by the Housing Law Practitioners Association and others.
	It was perhaps slightly unwise of the Minister to nod her agreement that she would be prepared to repeat everything that she said without reference to notes. I say that not least because when Lord Falconer was similarly challenged, he said that it would not be possible, because
	"For this, one would need a wet towel and every section of the Bill in front of one."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 January 2002; Vol. 630, c. 1022.]
	The amendments do not entirely close all the loopholes that have been identified. Nevertheless, most people are prepared to accept that they go a long way towards doing so and are therefore welcome.
	Like the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton- Brown), I pay tribute to the many organisations that have done the House a great service by providing briefings to all parties during our lengthy deliberations on this important Bill. I, too, wish the Bill a speedy progress to the statute book. It is much needed and many people have been arguing for it for a long time. I am delighted that it can now move rapidly to Royal Assent, and rightly so.

Sally Keeble: When I nodded in response to what the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) was saying, I was suggesting that he was making a good joke, rather than that I could repeat all that I had said without notes. He asked about the homelessness strategy; it will be out very soon. Following on from that will be the priority needs order, setting out the new categories of people who will be entitled to housing, and other broad strategies to improve the provision of social housing and the position of people in the private sector.
	People have repeatedly stated—as did the hon. Member for Bath just now—that this is the last time we shall debate this Bill, but there has been a continuous process of improving the Bill in all our discussions and debates, which shows that scrutiny in this place works. It has worked to great effect, even at this late stage, to improve the position of homeless families, children and people who are not in priority need, and of groups who previously had no help from the state with their housing.
	I echo what other hon. Members have said about the enormous service that all the Officers of the House have given to us. I also echo what they have said about the importance of the Bill; it will lead to a dramatic improvement in the rights of people to housing and to housing advice. Despite some of the things that have been said, there has been all-party support for the Bill, and I look forward to seeing those rights in action out in the community.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 14 agreed to.

Social Security

Alistair Darling: I beg to move,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002.

Alistair Darling: These orders will uprate most benefits in the normal way, but, as in every year since 1998, this year I am able to increase some benefits by more than the rate of inflation. We are able to do that because of our success in helping people into work. By making work pay and by making work possible, we now have the lowest unemployment rate of any of the major industrialised countries for the first time in more than half a century.
	Since 1997, claimant unemployment has fallen by over a third, and long-term unemployment is down by more than two thirds. As a result of that, we have saved £4 billion on the cost of unemployment and £0.5 billion has been saved by getting more lone parents into work, thanks, to a large extent, to the new deal. We have also started to bear down on fraud. All that has meant more money to invest in front-line public services, and more money to provide extra help where it is needed.
	Our objective is to ensure that we do everything that we can to help all those who can work to do so and provide greater security for those who are unable to work or who are retired. I shall set out briefly how we are able to do more in line with our priorities. First, we want to do more to help families with children, and to enable parents to balance their work and home lives. So, from this April, we are raising the standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay from £62.20 to £75 a week. As I told the House in November, that is the largest increase in maternity benefit since 1958.
	Next year, we will raise maternity benefit again, to £100 a week, and at the same time we will also increase the payment period from 18 to 26 weeks, and increase the ordinary maternity leave to 26 weeks followed by the option of a further 26 weeks unpaid. That will allow women to take up to a year off work when their children are born. At the same time, we shall introduce a new right to two weeks paid paternity leave, and a new right to 26 weeks paid adoption leave plus a further 26 weeks unpaid leave.
	We want to do more for families with children, as we have done in each of the last four years. Our objective is to end child poverty in a generation, and to halve it in 10 years. That is why we have increased child benefit by 25 per cent. more than inflation since 1997, and it will rise again this year. We have also increased the income support allowances for children under the age of 11 by 80 per cent. in real terms, which provides real help to families on low incomes.
	As a result of these and other tax and benefit measures, along with policies that are helping more parents into work, we have started to make significant inroads into tackling child poverty. Next year, in addition to further measures, the child tax credit will also help us move along the road to eradicating child poverty. This year—as I said to the House last November—I want to do more to help parents who are bringing up children with disabilities, and who face considerable extra costs.
	We have already extended benefits for severely disabled three and four-year-olds. Some 6,000 children and their families are now better off by more than £38 a week. But we want to do more than that to help those on the lowest incomes. When we came to office, the extra money paid to low-income families with a disabled child was just £21 a week. Last year, we increased that by more than £7 a week. This year, we intend to increase it by a further £5 on top of the normal uprating to a new rate of £35.50, which will benefit about 80,000 children. Next year, it will rise again by a further £5 more than inflation, to more than £40 a week, benefiting a large number of children who need that help. That will help families on low incomes, both in and out of work, and provide greater security where it is most needed.
	I can also confirm that the orders include the provision to remove barriers to work for severely disabled people, by making sure that work pays. From April we will no longer take into account the earnings of disabled people, or their partners, in the independent living fund. For the small number of families affected, that will be worth an average of £130 a week. We have also set out plans substantially to increase the capital limits, by extending help to people with savings of up to £18,500.
	There is one new measure that I would like to draw to the attention of the House, which we propose to introduce alongside the pension credit. Members on all sides have argued that the hospital downrating rules can cause difficulties and distress for those affected, and for their families. Indeed, I am sure that most of us have come across cases in our constituencies in which that has happened. We said that we would review the rules, and we have. Amendments to the State Pension Credit Bill in another place urged us to change the rules for pensioners, and we have decided to go further and include other benefits paid to help people with the cost of everyday living.
	The principle of avoiding double payment, which has been a feature of the welfare system since 1948, is important, and I do not intend to undermine that principle. But we recognise that people have continuing financial commitments when they go into hospital. I have therefore decided to change the rules, so that no reduction in pensions occurs until someone has been in hospital for 13 weeks, rather than the current six weeks. An estimated 26,000 people will benefit from this measure, at a cost of around £40 million a year.
	On pensions, it is important to look at the uprating measures as part of the wider pensions strategy. The basic state pension is, and will remain, the foundation of pensioner incomes, and this year it will rise again in real terms by £3 for single pensioners and £4.80 for couples, on top of the last year's increases, which makes a total rise of 7 per cent. above inflation. We have also guaranteed that future rises in the basic state pension will be at least £100 a year for single pensioners and at least £160 a year for couples, and I can confirm that today.
	Increases to the basic state pension alone would not be sufficient to tackle the pensioner poverty that we inherited. That is why we have radically improved the minimum income guarantee, benefiting more than 2 million pensioners. It is worth reminding the House that in 1997, the poorest pensioners were expected to live on just £68.80 a week. From April this year, the guarantee for a single pensioner will rise by £6 to £98.15. That is £30 a week more than it was in cash terms five years ago.
	Next year, the minimum income guarantee will rise again to at least £100, and it will rise in line with earnings for the rest of this Parliament. That represents real progress towards ending pensioner poverty. Around £2.5 billion of the cost of this uprating will go to the poorest third of pensioners, which is three times more than an earnings link would have given them. Since 1997, 98 per cent. of pensioners are better off than they would have been if we had returned to an earnings link.
	The House will shortly debate the principles and details of the State Pension Credit Bill, which has now passed through all its stages in another place. That will, of course, remove the disincentives inherent in the system that we inherited, because it addresses the long-standing tension between providing a floor below which pensioner incomes should not fall and encouraging people to save for retirement. It will also reward thrift and about 5 million pensioners on low or modest incomes will gain, on average, £400 a year. More than half the beneficiaries are women. Those who oppose the pension credit might want to reflect on what a difference its success would make. The pension credit will rectify a long-standing anomaly in the social security system and benefit a large number of pensioners.
	The state second pension will also be introduced in April, which will benefit some 18 million people— 2 million disabled people, 2 million carers and 14 million people on low earnings. A combination of what we have done on the basic state pension; the minimum income guarantee, which will rise again; the pension credit, which will reward savings; and the state second pension means that we can do far more than ever to ensure that we help all pensioners, but especially those facing poverty and those living on modest savings and modest incomes, who ought to be helped for their efforts rather than held back by the system that we inherited.
	The measures before the House will be welcomed by a large number of people of working and of pension age as well as by families with children. They mark another stage in our reforms of the welfare state. We have been able to release funds by getting more people into work and by cutting fraud. We are able to spend more money where it is needed most. I commend the orders to the House.

David Willetts: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his crisp and short speech—I shall do my best to be almost as brief—and I assure him that we shall not divide the House. We shall not make the Liberal Democrats' famous mistake of trying to prevent the uprating of the basic pension, so, if there is to be any drama in the debate, it will not be a knife-edge vote initiated by us. Instead, we shall press the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues for information on various aspects of the social security system, as the debate presents an opportunity to achieve clarification.
	First, let us consider some measures that the Secretary of State did not refer to. We have been waiting for the package to help new carers, which he announced on 3 October 2000 by saying that new carers over the age of 65 would be eligible for invalid care allowance and the carer's premium in income support. That seems to be slowly making its way through the Whitehall machine, so we are interested to hear from the Minister when new carers might receive those higher benefits, which the Government announced to a general welcome.
	I should apologise to the Minister, because I may have to leave to catch the train to my constituency before the debate ends, but my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who will make the Opposition winding-up speech, is looking forward to hearing the answer to that question.
	The Secretary of State also omitted any reference to housing benefit. I remember the days, only a couple of years ago, when it was to be the next big welfare reform target. On 29 June 1999, he said that
	"the present Housing Benefit can't continue . . . So whether it is tax credits wholly or partly . . . people who need help with housing costs will get help".
	He was clearly expecting housing benefit reform to be part of the wider tax credit reform to which he referred, but it is clearly not to be. We and many outside the House are interested to know whether the Government intend to announce any housing benefit reform. Instead of that, we have had this evening's announcement on the hospital downrating rules in response to a campaign pressed by Age Concern in particular and by many Members on both sides of the House over the past few months.
	We welcome the change, which is not a U-turn, but, perhaps, a J-turn that tackles a genuine concern for many pensioners. [Interruption.] A J-turn is shorter than a U-turn, because it runs to only 13 weeks. We have to be Kremlinologists with this Department, because the quality of its parliamentary answers is, sadly, so low that we cannot always get the information to which we are entitled. We have been following its answers on this subject with great care over the past few months. First, we had one from the previous Minister of State, now Lord Rooker, who said:
	"We have no plans at present to revise the rules regarding the payment of Retirement Pension to people who remain in NHS hospitals for longer than six weeks."—[Official Report, 22 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 600W.]
	That was the original position, but then we had the review, which involved an answer from the Minister for Pensions, who said:
	"The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, is looking at issues affecting hospital in-patients, including the rules governing the downrating of benefits."—[Official Report, 11 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 781W.]
	Everybody followed the review with great interest.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House of his position on that policy when he was in government?

David Willetts: Since 1948, the position has been that, in principle, people should not receive two separate benefits in respect of the same need. Conservative Members, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, have drawn the House's attention to practical proposals for tackling that problem. [Interruption.] Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). A significant part of the problem has been not just the rules, but the way in which they are administered. The distress among pensioners has been greater because they were not confident that, if and when they left hospital, their benefits would be reinstated as promptly and efficiently as they ought to be.
	The Minister for Pensions made another response:
	"The Department, in conjunction with the Department of Health, has looked at issues affecting hospital in-patients, including rules governing the downrating of benefits.
	This rule prevents double provision from public funds as the publicly funded NHS maintains people while they stay in hospital as well as providing free treatment. Social security maintenance benefits are also paid from state funds. They are therefore not paid in full indefinitely . . .
	The double provision principle is a key cornerstone of the system of national insurance introduced over 50 years ago."—[Official Report, 8 January 2002; Vol. 377, c. 699W.]
	The review seems to have been concluded with a decision against doing anything, which is why today's announcement is such a pleasant surprise. We welcome it, but may I ask the Minister how it compares with the regime for pensioners in care homes?
	Bed blocking is a significant problem in the NHS, so I would be grateful for clarification of the rules as they now apply. My understanding is that a pensioner or, as we know from what the Secretary of State said, any person in hospital will receive for up to 13 weeks their full basic state pension and their full income support. How does that compare with the position of a pensioner in a care home, who will receive £16.80 a week pocket money, as it is called, but who will not receive the full basic pension or the full value of income support?
	In the process of tackling a grievance, the Secretary of State may have created another and different one—a wider gap between the treatment of people in hospitals and people in care homes. One problem for Ministers is their care homes blind spot, which is apparent in their winter fuel payment proposals. They still say that every pensioner gets a winter fuel payment. That is not true. Pensioners on income support in care homes do not get winter fuel payments.
	There is the same problem with the pension credit. The Secretary of State referred to it, but we know that local authorities will take account of pension credit income in setting the income of pensioners in care homes. They will not get the benefit of the pension credit, which will be absorbed in higher charges from local authorities with hard-pressed social services departments. The contrast between today's announcement on hospital downrating and the wider care homes regime is striking.

David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may have a point, but the Secretary of State's announcement on pensioners in hospital is very welcome, certainly on the Labour Benches. Why were the Conservative Government so adamant up to 1997 that under no circumstances should pensioners receive any assistance on winter heating, apart from the cold weather payments, which were limited to those on income support and had several disadvantages? The issue was raised time and again from the Opposition Benches, and not just by me. Why was there no shift? Of course, we know what happened the moment that Labour came to office.

David Willetts: I know that the hon. Gentleman has pressed for such measures for a long time. In developing our philosophy, we learned much from the Christmas bonus, an attempt to achieve a similar result nearly 30 years ago. We thought it better for such payments to be part of the overall pension, rather than being special payments separate from the wider rules on indexation.
	I do not wish to detain the House, but one striking feature of what we have heard today is the absence of an uprating of the winter fuel payment. I suspect that in 30 years it will be as the Christmas bonus is today. We will see whether I am wrong—but who knows whether either the hon. Gentleman or I will still be in the House then? It is one of those forecasts that can be made confidently by those who may not be around to see what happens. I think, however, that whether the winter fuel payment is an important and continuing part of pensioners' incomes or goes the way of the Christmas bonus is open to debate, and I remain sceptical.

David Winnick: Do I take it that, despite all the hon. Gentleman has said in comparing the winter fuel payment to the Christmas bonus, he now accepts the former?

David Willetts: We believed all along that it would have been far better to consolidate the winter fuel payment in the basic state pension.

David Winnick: Subject to tax.

David Willetts: We are revisiting old arguments. The Conservative party said from the start that there would be no tax increase for pensioners as a result of consolidation. We now live in a world in which the winter fuel payment is widely received by pensioners, and, recognising that, we have no plans to take it from them.
	I hoped that we would hear rather more from the Secretary of State about the decline of pensions. We did not hear a word about what is perhaps the most significant change that will affect benefits, benefit expenditure and the incomes of those who retire, although it is taking place dramatically day by day. Two measures in the uprating order show that we are heading in the wrong direction. The minimum income guarantee is rising in line with prices, which will extend means-testing, and the pension credit will take it further up the income scale.
	At the same time, we have contracted out rebates that create a significant risk of companies' re-entering the second state pension, because the value of the rebates is unlikely to match the cost of the liabilities from which they are escaping. I shall not detain the House with all the arguments, but I was struck by information from William Mercer, a leading firm of actuaries, which said only recently that it did not believe the contracted-out rebates would be adequate.
	Companies may well end their current contracting-out arrangements, and enter the state second pension instead. We shall also have more means-tested benefits. Those two developments will mean that we shall not move into a world in which—this being the Secretary of State's own aim—60 per cent. of pensioners' incomes come from genuinely funded savings and 40 per cent. come from the state. Conservative Members entirely support that aim, but we are heading in the opposite direction.
	A stream of companies are now announcing that they are closing occupational pension funds to new members: Alliance and Leicester, AstraZeneca, Barclays, BT Group, British Airways, Boots, Cable and Wireless, Capita, GlaxoSmith-Kline, HSBC, ICI—I could go on. Many companies now say that their final salary schemes will not be available to people joining them.
	I was disappointed not to hear from the Secretary of State any recognition of the significance of the change that is taking place around him. What it means is that many people will retire with pension incomes much below what they expect, and will depend on means-tested benefits. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a problem, when so many companies are announcing closure of their occupational pension schemes to new members? Do the Government recognise that there is an issue, or are they going to bury their head in the sand? We have heard nothing from the Secretary of State about the subject today, or over the past weeks and months during which it has become a matter of public concern.
	I know that there are many factors behind the change, which pre-date 1997. Not just one factor but the burden of regulation, the burden of taxation and the impact of FRS17 led to it. Clearly, however, the consequence of a combination of ever-heavier regulation, ever-heavier taxation and, now, the new accountancy rules is that those who retire cannot expect to enjoy the incomes for which they hoped. Instead, they will depend on means-tested benefits. The pension credit about which the Secretary of State boasted will embrace more and more people as a substitute for what Conservative Members want them to enjoy—a more valuable funded occupational pension.
	Rather than providing more generous occupational pensions and less dependence on means-tested benefits, we are heading in the opposite direction. We have yet to hear anything from the Government that shows that they recognise the scale of the problem, or can produce any measures demonstrating their willingness to tackle it. I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not intervened; we hoped that we might at least hear some reflection from him on the significance of the change that is taking place.
	We need to hear more about credits and tax credits, which the Secretary of State did mention. His speech will have been the last to cover some of the benefits that are being uprated, and I think it important for those in all parts of the House to understand how measures for parliamentary scrutiny and parliamentary debate will function in future. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, there has been a
	"lamentable lack of public discussion and openness"
	in regard to the Government's proposals for credits and tax credits. What will be the arrangements for scrutiny of the value of such credits in future? What will be the parliamentary procedures? My understanding is that, unfortunately, we will not have the procedures that we have for the uprating of benefits.
	At present, social security benefits are uprated by Standing Orders that are subject to the affirmative procedure. That includes the working families tax credit. Now, the new tax credits in the Tax Credits Bill will be subject to the negative procedure, and debated only if they are prayed against. It looks as if there will be similar arrangements for pension credits. The level of parliamentary scrutiny of the value of those credits will be much lower than the level of parliamentary scrutiny of the value of the benefits they are replacing.
	I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He chairs a Select Committee that has already done useful work on pension credits, and we hope that it will be able to perform a role in the absence of full parliamentary scrutiny.
	How will the credits be treated in the public accounts? We know from the Office for National Statistics that there will be a move towards the European and OECD conventions, but does the Secretary of State seriously claim—I am thinking here of the working families tax credit conventions—that, for example, child premium and income support, with which all Members have been familiar for a long time, will miraculously become a tax cut? Will it appear in Government expenditure figures? Will it disappear from expenditure figures, and appear on the other side of the balance sheet as a tax reduction? Is that what will happen to the benefits whose uprating we are discussing? It seems an extraordinary proposal, but if working families tax credit is anything to go by it is what the Government envisage. Miraculously, the Secretary of State will be able to claim that he has saved money on the social security budget and that the Government are cutting taxes. It will have been done entirely with smoke and mirrors.
	What about the other features of the system? Will the benefits be available, have the circumstances changed, what constitutes a significant change in circumstances, will people who may be on modest incomes lose as a result of a change in their finances of which the Inland Revenue will not take account until the end of the year? Those are important questions that will affect people who currently receive the benefits we are discussing, but we have had no clear explanation from Ministers.
	I hope that Labour Members will pursue the issues as strongly as we have, because it is important to consider what happens in future years to people on modest incomes who experience a change in circumstances with no matching adjustment of what was their benefit entitlement. That is what happens if one tries to make a benefit into a tax. It does not work. Many people, including some of the most vulnerable members of society, will lose as a result.
	This may be the last uprating statement on some of the benefits, which are going to disappear into the Treasury and become tax reductions. I hope that the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will take responsibility for these measures, will ensure that they at least apply the level of scrutiny and sensitivity to the needs of our constituents that has been displayed over the years by the social security system.

Steve Webb: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) and wish him well if he is off to spend an evening in a council house. I hope that he will report back to the House on that.
	The orders deal with the benefits for the coming financial year and the guaranteed minimum pension. With one or two exceptions, they involve indexation in line with inflation and some above-inflation increases in the retirement pension, which we welcome. However, the House will be aware that, alongside the order, the Government Actuary prepares a report on the state of the national insurance fund. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State; I do not recall him mentioning the fund once. The document makes interesting reading. It shows what money the Government had available when they sat down to decide what to do with benefits this coming year.
	I was startled to read—perhaps I should have been aware of it beforehand—that when the Government Actuary sat down in November 2000 to forecast national insurance revenue for the current financial year, he estimated that it would total £55.5 billion. The outturn is more likely to be £57.9 billion, or £2.5 billion of extra revenue in a year. Therefore, we must set some of the Secretary of State's announcements in the context of a £2.5 billion overshoot of revenue to the national insurance fund.
	The Government Actuary indicates that the balance of that fund in the year ending 2001 was 41 per cent. of benefit expenditure and payment; in 2002, it will be 47 per cent; and in 2003, it will be 52 per cent. Therefore, the balance in the national insurance fund is substantial and growing. Set against those huge sums and the fact that there is £2.5 billion more than was budgeted for, do we judge this as a generous or a mean settlement?
	We must look at the welcome announcement of the relaxation of the hospital downrating rules. Perhaps I am not the only hon. Member who discovered that—as usual, not in the form of a statement from the Secretary of State but about four hours earlier through a press release that mysteriously appeared on my fax machine, which said:
	"McCartney acts to help those on benefits".
	[Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that we were sent it by the Department. We were not. We never are. We were sent it by a newspaper. That is the way in which we get information. He should check with his officials to find out why hon. Members find these things out from the press rather than in the House.

Alistair Darling: On that point, the announcement was made in another place properly by one of my ministerial colleagues.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for that confirmation. I am rather confused as to why the Secretary of State does not feel able to ensure that Members of this House are notified at the same time.
	Hospital downrating rules have been relaxed somewhat, so instead of pension being cut after spending six weeks in hospital, it is cut after 13 weeks in hospital. Clearly, that is a step in the right direction. The Secretary of State said that that would cost £40 million a year. The overall cost of the pension downrating is about £60 million a year. When we set that against the £2,500 million that the Government had not expected a year ago, we start to see how parsimonious the concession is. The Government could have paid for the abolition of the downrating of pensions over the next 40 years but they chose not to go the extra mile; they have moved barely an extra inch.
	Although a few pensioners will welcome the announcement, when they read the small print they will discover that if they go into hospital this week they will still have their pension downrated after six weeks. Next month—indeed, this time next year—they will still have it downrated after six weeks.
	According to the press release, the changes coincide with the introduction of the pension credit in autumn 2003, so although we have had the announcement today the Government will continue to take money off pensioners who have spent six weeks in hospital. We will hear the same announcement several times in the meantime, yet the measure will be implemented fully only in October 2003. I hope that the Minister who responds to the debate will tell the House why the change has been introduced in this way. It has nothing to do with the pension credit. It could have been brought in quickly. Could it not have been brought in sooner, sparing some pensioners the misery of having pension taken away from them?

Tim Boswell: Will the hon. Gentleman reflect on the possibility that, unless the transitional rules are very carefully scoped, a pensioner who falls within the six-week period before the operating date in April 2003 may have benefit withdrawn, but a pensioner who falls after that time may not? That could create a further anomaly.

Steve Webb: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right. I understand that the changes come into force in October 2003 when the pension credit is introduced. The argument in principle is simply not there. People have paid for their pensions all their lives. If they have paid for a private pension they are allowed to keep it, but if they get a state pension some of it is taken away from them.
	The Government say that there is double provision, but where is the evidence? What studies—I hope that the Minister will tell us when he responds—has the Department done of the costs that people incur as a hospital in-patient? The Department may say that they save money on food, but what about the extra costs that they incur? What about when a spouse comes to visit and pays for hospital car parking or for transport? What about the other costs, regardless of whether someone is in hospital? Has the Department any evidence that people are better off during a hospital stay? I suspect that it has no evidence whatever, and until it produces such evidence there should be no hospital downrating, not merely the half-hearted concession that we have heard about.
	I mentioned that not all the rates in the orders have been uprated in line with inflation. I looked long and hard, and there it was on page 16 of the order: the age addition to the pension mysteriously remains at 25p. Year after year Ministers acknowledge that it is absurd and an insult to pay people 25p, yet they do nothing about it. Is not it clear that the poorest pensioners in the land are not merely the oldest but the oldest who fail to claim their minimum income guarantee? They do not get the MIG. They do get their pension. Twenty-five pence is all they get on top of their basic pension.

Howard Flight: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as several pensioners in my constituency have pointed out, the cost to them merely of updating their pension book will be more than that pathetic 25p?

Steve Webb: It is absurd. The fact that the cost of a first-class stamp exceeds that amount highlights how absurd it is, yet it is a perfectly good mechanism for delivering guaranteed cash to poor pensioners. In fact, it is the only genuine guarantee. When I take over from the Secretary of State, I shall rename it the guaranteed age addition. It is the only feature of the system that is truly guaranteed. [Interruption.] I should have added hastily that I shall be deputy to my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
	The Government Actuary's report on the orders highlights another worrying factor that the Secretary of State again glossed over. It refers to the lack of information before the House about some key elements of the pension and benefit system because of national insurance recording system 2. Page 10 of the report says:
	"The introduction of NIRS2 has meant that there is a lack of data showing current numbers contracted out . . . there is, at present, uncertainty about the numbers of people contracting-out."
	Therefore, the House does not have information, despite the fact that we are always assured that the computer system is sorted, there is nothing to worry about, and it is so good that the same people will be given the contract. Years after the system was introduced we still cannot obtain the basic information that we require to assess what the Government are doing.
	Likewise, the information is uncertain about statutory sick pay and statutory maternity pay. Page 27 of the report states:
	"Estimates of both SSP and SMP have suffered greatly from a lack of reliable data since the transfer . . . to the NIRS2 computer system. It has been some years since the data on SSP and SMP has been free of problems and there may be substantial revisions to estimates . . . once sufficient reliable data on amounts of SSP and SMP recovered . . . is available."
	When will we know? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. When will this be sorted out? When will the House have reliable information from that multi-million pound computer system? When will it work properly? That is what the House wants to know. Will the Minister tell us?
	All the benefits in the orders are fine if people receive them. However, far too many of our constituents fail to get the benefits that they are being promised today. The Secretary of State has had his advertising campaigns, and Thora Hird, and people ringing up—but how many people, especially pensioners, are still not getting the money that they are entitled to? That number is still nearly half a million for the minimum income guarantee—[Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State question that number? I do not know why he is shaking his head.
	Nearly half a million people are not getting their minimum income guarantee, and probably double that number are not claiming their council tax benefit. Year on year, successive Governments have used council tax to bring in extra cash through a mechanism of taxation for which they do not get the blame, so that has become an increasingly heavy burden for pensioners in all parts of the country. The fact that council tax benefit misses so many pensioners is an increasing source of concern.
	What plans do the Government have to get the council tax benefit to pensioners? It has one of the lowest take-up rates of any benefit, yet it can be critical for pensioners just beyond the reach of the other means-tested benefits. What is the Government's strategy?

Vernon Coaker: rose—

Karen Buck: rose—

Steve Webb: I shall give way first to the hon. Gentleman, and then to the hon. Lady.

Vernon Coaker: Has the hon. Gentleman considered whether part of the problem with the take-up of benefits may be that—for perfectly understandable political reasons—both he as a Liberal Democrat spokesman and the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who speaks for the Conservatives, always use the term "means-tested" in a derogatory way? Does he not think that that might sometimes influence pensioners, for whom, rightly, means-testing has certain connotations? Does he not think that if he talked instead about "targeting" benefits, that might encourage people to take up those benefits?

Steve Webb: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I have some doubts about whether even my oratorical powers could affect benefit take-up rates. The key point is that resistance to means-tested benefits does not come from me. Actually, I am moderately comfortable with filling in long complicated forms—it is the sort of thing I do in my spare time—but that is probably not the sort of thing that many older folk want to do. They regard such questions as intrusive.
	I freely accept that means-testing every five years is better than means-testing every week. Clearly, that change has the potential to be a step in the right direction. However, the principle that we all want for our old age is to know what our income will be, rather than depending on the whim of a Minister. We want to know with certainty, and that is possible only with a definite firm foundation from the state, reliable indexation rules and a good second pension on top to get us clear of means-testing altogether. We do not want to have to rely every year on documents such as those before us now, which nobody really understands, yet which can have a dramatic effect on people's living standards.

Vernon Coaker: If the hon. Gentleman were Secretary of State for Social Security, would his Liberal Democrat Government do no targeting at all?

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has heard me speak before on such subjects, so he probably knows that we do not regard targeting as synonymous with means-testing—[Interruption.] There are perfectly good reasons for that, as I shall explain.
	There is a strong relationship between poverty and old age, especially advanced old age. Our ideas may not be perfect, but neither is targeting through means-testing, because of all the people who miss out, and the disincentive effect on savings. We are talking about not a choice between a perfect system and an imperfect system, but a choice between two imperfect systems.
	We say that if we target primarily by age, while keeping a safety net for the recently retired poor, we cover most of the poor, including many of those who do not get their means-tested benefits—that is, half a million on one count alone. We would get through to those people with a guaranteed take-up, no administrative cost, and no disincentive to save—indeed, quite the contrary, because people's savings build on their guaranteed state pension. That seems to us a better trade off than mass means-testing—

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Steve Webb: I shall, but first I shall finish the point that I was making—and then I must give way to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), because I have already said that I would.
	To give an idea of the scale of the failure that the Government are building into the proposals, I must remind the House that Baroness Hollis said that one in three of the people entitled to the proposed pension credit would not claim it in the first year. She said that take-up would build up as people became familiar with the credit, and I hope that she is right—but that still means that one in three of the 5.5 million pensioners will miss out on what they are entitled to. That is planning for failure, and it is no way to guarantee pensioners a decent standard of living in old age.

Karen Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman cost the proposal to provide an income at the level of the minimum income guarantee for all pensioner households, which is effectively the corollary of what he suggests when he says that the entitlement should be available to everybody?

Steve Webb: The gap between the pension proposed in the regulations before us—£75.50—and the MIG figure, which is more than £90, is not very different from the pension rises that we proposed in our costed manifesto, which contained a £3 billion package of increases in pensions financed by the proceeds of the 50p rate of income tax on incomes over £100,000 a year. We asked the Treasury what money would be raised by such a rate of income tax, and were told that it would be well in excess of £3 billion. Our political choice would be that those most able to do so should pay for pension rises, which would go predominantly to older pensioners. That would enable us to fill the gap between the basic pension and the means-tested pension.
	We do not propose that the pension rate would be the same for every pensioner at every age. We are saying that we want to get as many pensioners as we can clear of the MIG level, starting with the oldest pensioners. That is our strategy.

Alistair Darling: How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the fact that his party leader recently said that he hoped to go into the next election as a low-tax party?

Steve Webb: As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, that is not what my party leader said—[Hon. Members: "Oh!"] He may be aware that we have set up a review commission, of which I am a member, to consider the future of the public services, with a broad remit to examine both the role of the public and private sectors, and funding levels. That remit is wide, and there is an open debate going on within the party. The options of higher spending, lower spending, and a greater role for the public or the private sector, are all on the table at the start; otherwise, why bother with the review? However, our policy stance is that we are clearly committed to higher pensions across the board, particularly for older pensioners. That remains our position.

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not in a position to make a promise that his party would increase pensions, either for pensioners as a whole or for some pensioners, at the same time as saying that all those promises are up for grabs. Even the Liberals cannot get away with going into the next election saying that they will increase spending here, there and everywhere, yet also cut taxes for everybody else. That does not make any sense; it has no credibility.

Steve Webb: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the fact that we have in front of us a document written by the Government Actuary showing that the Government have just found £2.5 billion—probably a recurrent £2.5 billion—in addition to what they expected. That would cover the vast bulk of what I am saying that we would do, even if nothing else, with no additional 50p tax rate. The suggestion that we could not do more for older pensioners is absurd.

Anne Begg: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree that the national insurance fund funds not only pensions but unemployment benefits and a range of other contributory benefits. At the moment unemployment is very low; more people are working, so more people are paying into the fund. However, although I hope that that will remain the case, it may not. In five years' time the position might be reversed. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we should spend all that money today and have nothing to spare in the piggy bank for tomorrow? I do not think that that would do great things for pensioners tomorrow, when the fund will have been spent.

Steve Webb: If we were suggesting blowing the entire national insurance fund I should agree with the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] No, I did not suggest that. The £2.5 billion that I am talking about is excess revenue—the amount above which the Government budgeted, presumably on the sober, cautious basis to which the hon. Lady referred. As I pointed out earlier, at the year ending March 2001 the national insurance fund was already 40 per cent. of the annual benefit expenditure. Next year, that figure is set to rise to 52 per cent. How high are we going to let that amount rise? The proportion of benefit expenditure is constantly increasing. It would be irresponsible to blow the lot, but at some point we might say that national insurance revenues are going well and they should be spent on pensioners.

David Willetts: I was struck by the fact that the Secretary of State, who does not feel able to intervene on the subject of the current state of occupational pensions, intervened twice on the subject of Liberal Democrat tax plans. It is a pity that he devoted more effort to intervening on that subject than on the most important social change currently taking place.
	I do not agree with the figures given by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) but I support his philosophy. As he knows, we have in common the view that there is a difference between means-testing and targeting. Does he agree that when he pointed out that difference it was disappointing that so many Labour Members laughed as though they thought that was manifest rubbish? In fact, the crucial insight of Beveridge—the most important single insight in the Beveridge report, about which at least one Minister sitting on the Treasury Bench has written eloquently—is precisely that under a smart social security policy we can target without means-testing, if we identify categories of claimant carefully enough. That is a powerful point and it is a pity that the Government do not recognise it.

Steve Webb: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those comments. He is right. I should acknowledge his parentage of that idea—I do not always manage to do so. As an impressionable early twenty-something, I studied one of his pamphlets for a little bedtime reading. It was called "The Age of Entitlement", and seemed like a good idea at the time, although the Conservatives never adopted it with any gusto, but I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reconversion. Perhaps that will give us the basis for consensus on both sides of the House. One of the things that has bedevilled pensions policy is the constant to-ing and fro-ing and the ripping up of previous promises. If we can find a basis for agreement—I know that some Labour Members are sympathetic on that point—it would be a step in the right direction.
	I have been greatly heartened by the careful attention accorded to Liberal Democrat proposals as an alternative to those of the Government. The serious scrutiny that they have been given reflects our position as a Government in waiting, so I very much welcome that attention. We assure the House that we shall not oppose the regulations, but we feel that the measure on hospital downrating is a grudging concession made to deal with what was going to be a rebellion in this place. The Government had the money to go further; they should have had the grace to go further.

Vernon Coaker: I have a few comments on the uprating statement and want to draw attention to a few points. When we consider the amount of spending proposed under the orders, it is extraordinary that the Chamber is not packed. Furthermore, these are social security orders, so whatever the rights and wrongs of the proposed measures, when we consider the thousands and thousands of people in each of our constituencies who are affected by the scale, uprating and receipt of benefits, the debate is hugely important.
	Something must be happening to me because this is the third debate on this subject that I have attended and I actually enjoy them. The reason is that although there are differences between the Opposition and the Government and indeed between the Opposition parties, we none the less hold careful, intelligent debates—as we have just heard—on the fundamental issues that affect us.
	Although I do not agree with everything that was said by the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for Havant (Mr. Willetts), there are aspects with which I agree and which challenge us all. If we were all to be honest, I suspect that Opposition Members would say that some of the Government's views challenge them to reconsider their position. I make these points because we need to remember how fundamental this subject is and that our debate is important.
	I want to make a couple of points about the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. Whatever the furore about the rate of the basic state pension—which, as we have heard, is to be uprated again in April—I know that the minimum income guarantee has meant that about 2,000 pensioners in my constituency have received a considerable addition to their income.
	When we talk to people about the minimum income guarantee and pensions, for obvious reasons they do not put up their hands and say "I get the minimum income guarantee and what the Government have done means a significant increase in my income". In each and every one of our constituencies, a considerable number of pensioners will have benefited from the introduction of the minimum income guarantee. The hon. Member for Northavon was right to draw attention to the problem with take-up. However, if we can ensure that people take it up when they meet the rules—the capital savings rules have been relaxed—a single person will receive £98.15 and a couple will receive £149.70 from next April, which is a considerable improvement on the income that they would have had before the minimum income guarantee existed.
	We can debate the difference between means-testing and targeting, but the word "means-testing" has a particular connotation for the pensioner age group. In a few years, when people who are now in their 50s and 60s become pensioners, it may not have the same connotation. However, the continual discussion in the House about means-testing being bad does not help to encourage people to claim means-tested benefits. It merely reinforces people's feeling that those on means-tested benefits have something wrong with them, are not the sort of people to whom others will look up, and have failed. Although the hon. Member for Northavon mocks his own oratorical skills, I was not saying that he was speaking passionately about the evils of means-testing all over the country. However, he consistently points out that means-testing is wrong, which, I believe, impacts on the number of people who claim the minimum income guarantee.
	Through the minimum income guarantee, the Government have targeted support on thousands of the poorest pensioners in our constituencies. We can debate the basic state pension and take-up, but the Government deserve a great deal of credit for not taking the easy option of putting a few pounds on the basic state pension for everyone. Instead, the minimum income guarantee has added a considerable amount by targeting help on the poorest pensioners in the community, many of whom are older pensioners who do not have an occupational pension, or are older women. Far from being critical of the Government for doing that, we should credit them with a great deal of courage for saying that their policy will be to try to ensure that money goes to the poorest pensioners in our community. Through targeting, we can ensure that those pensioners receive a considerable amount of money. Of course, the problem of take-up remains, and hon. Members will need to continue to raise that issue.
	The pension credit, to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred, was designed to tackle one of the real problems of the minimum income guarantee—a small amount of savings, a small income or a modest occupational pension might take people just above the level at which they could receive the minimum income guarantee. That caused a considerable feeling of injustice and unfairness. The hon. Member for Havant mentioned the genuine concern about occupational and private pensions. In discussing reform, a judgment must be made on pensions and social security uprating. The Government have said that their policy is to target resources on the poorest pensioners through the minimum income guarantee—Opposition Members will say that that is flawed—and that the next group that they shall try to help is those pensioners who feel left out because of the minimum income guarantee rules, on whom they will target resources through the pension credit.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making a careful and sensible speech, and I agree with much of it. Given that hon. Members on both sides of the House share some of the same objectives, our argument centres on the delivery system. At what point will the hon. Gentleman accept that we are not delivering the benefit to the poorest pensioners? At what point will he accept that an alternative delivery system might achieve the same objective more effectively and efficiently so that we reach the pensioners whom we want to support?

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not think that we have reached that stage. In general, the policy has been effective for a considerable number of pensioners in our constituencies. It is clear that there is a problem with take-up, but that does not mean that the policy has failed. The problem is the way in which we talk about means-testing—to be frank, it is sometimes used for political reasons as an easy way to attack the Government—and how it is perceived. That does not help the take-up of the minimum income guarantee. The targeting of resources to ensure that the poorest members of our community are supported does not have the same stigma attached to it and commands much greater support.

Karen Buck: I share the concerns of hon. Members about take-up and we need to address that problem. However, there is evidence—anecdotal in my experience—that a substantial number of the people who could claim for income-based benefits are eligible for only small amounts. The case remains to be proven that a large number, let alone all, of the people who are missing out on the minimum income guarantee or the working families tax credit would be entitled to a substantial amount or all of the sum that would make up the difference. We have to weigh that up. Many people are on the margins of a claim that would not necessarily give them a large amount of additional income.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend's intervention needs no comment from me: she proves the standard of the debate by making an important and fair point that is probably true. However, it is difficult to ascertain how many people do not take up the minimum income guarantee for that reason.
	I am pleased that the Government have announced a change to the rule on the downrating of benefits when people are in hospital. Many hon. Members have been contacted by people who think that it is unfair that their benefits are reduced when they are in hospital for longer than six weeks. I am pleased that the Government have increased that to 13 weeks. A constituent who was in Nottingham City hospital recently contacted me about that. I am sure that all hon. Members have similar constituency examples.
	We often talk about the minimum income guarantee in terms of pensioners and the take-up of benefit, but the attendance allowance is one of the most important benefits for pensioners. In my experience, not everyone is fully cognisant of the fact that it is possible to claim attendance allowance to cover care needs. The higher rate for that will be £56.25 from next week and it enables people to get help so that they are looked after in their own homes. I cannot stress how crucial that allowance is for pensioners.

Howard Flight: I fully agree with the hon. Gentleman, but is he aware of one of the resulting problems? People who may be old and not that mentally clear go into nursing homes, the costs of which have risen dramatically particularly in the southern half of the country, without realising that they will lose their attendance allowance. I have had many constituency cases of people who thought that they had done their arithmetic, settled in a nursing home and then found that they could not afford the care. Relatives had to be dug out to try to help. Therefore, such a worthy benefit illustrates one of the problems of means-testing.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point about attendance allowance and nursing homes. As I said, points about various benefits can always be made, and that argument has been put to me and no doubt to many hon. Members. We often talk about the fact that many pensioners and others who are entitled to the minimum income guarantee do not claim it. Indeed, I have tabled a question on the matter for Monday's Question Time. My point is that a substantial number of elderly people who live in their own home do not claim the non-means-tested attendance allowance available—or claim the allowance at the lower rate when they are entitled to the higher rate. That benefit is hugely important and should be mentioned when discussing benefits and supports available.
	I broadly welcome the social security uprating order, and I am to a certain extent pleased with the way in which the Government are trying to integrate the tax and benefits systems and with the work that has been done on tax credits. I say that because one important thing that a Department for Work and Pensions should do is to try to address a problem that we all recognise: the need for the social security system to avoid creating a culture of dependency. It should create a culture that not only, of course, supports people when they are out of work or in need, but encourages people back into work, because that is the best form of welfare.
	One of the most depressing things which I am sure we all experience when we visit some houses, estates, streets and parts of our cities—as well as, indeed, some rural areas; the problem is not just in cities—is seeing generations of people who have become dependent on benefit. Entire families have become dependent on benefit and have been workless for a considerable time. Indeed, whole communities have been workless.
	The Government are trying more effectively to integrate the tax and benefits systems, so that work truly pays. One problem with the benefits system is that when people return to work and gain pay, they lose benefits, which means that it is not worth their going to work—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The debate is about increases in social security benefits and pensions rather than the wider points that the hon. Member is making.

Vernon Coaker: Thank you for bringing me back to the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	In the context of wider Government policy, I support the orders.

Howard Flight: I am disappointed by the uprating order. First, it illustrates, as my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said, that the Government have given up tackling the more difficult areas such as housing benefit. Secondly, although no doubt with the best will in the world the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) would rather means-tested benefits were called something else, the reality is that the hassle of filling out forms means that individuals perceive them as means-tested benefits. There is a major difference between targeting and means-testing. The order shows the Government going further in reshaping the welfare state into one that is means-tested. The children's tax credit and working tax credit yet to come increase that likelihood.
	In addition, it is clear, as the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said, that the Government view national insurance merely as an alternative tax source. The Government should be more honest—if they want to take welfare in that direction, people should be aware of it. Many elderly people still believe that national insurance is national insurance. That is the system under which they paid, and their children are now doing the same to pay for broadly universal entitlements to benefits in their later years.
	I want to focus particularly on pensions, the pensions credit and the minimum income guarantee. This is a serious mess—if Ministers had set out to smash private pensions, they could not have done it better. It is worrying that on several occasions when the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to express his concerns or thoughts about the major rundown in occupational pensions and final salary schemes, he has apparently not done so, although admittedly we await the findings of the Pickering report. Candidly, the alleged target of provision for pensions coming from private pensions savings—increasing from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent.—is becoming a farce.
	There are many good things in the stakeholder arrangement. However, the minimum income guarantee and pension guarantee mean that for more than half the people for whom stakeholders were intended, there is no point in saving for one. As has been demonstrated in Canada, people do not want to be forced to sink their precious pension savings in an annuity where the real returns are nearly halved.
	Many people have not realised that the shift from final salary to money purchase pension savings—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my earlier comment. We are debating the increases in social security benefits and pensions.

Howard Flight: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, the point that I am coming on to is that the Government's response to what is happening in private sector pension provisioning is shown in the increases to the minimum income guarantee made in the order. That takes us, as a nation, in the opposite direction from the one that I think right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House want to go in.
	The Government looked to stakeholder pensions to boost private sector pension saving, but that is not happening. Instead, we are seeing a very generous increase in the minimum income guarantee. It is well intended because it is designed to deal with the problem now. However, what worries me is that it leads to behaviour that is simply not sustainable. On the assumption that the minimum income guarantee continues as it is, the reaction of the public to perceiving that they will have a very adequate income in retirement is, if anything, not to bother with private sector pension saving, or to do less of it.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has said that, by 2005, the costs of such an approach would be the equivalent of something like 5p on income tax, rising to about 11p by 2050. It would cost about £26 billion in today's money. Some 65 per cent. of the population would be dependent on a means-tested pension. Surely that is the exact opposite of the Government's intended pensions policy. I am particularly worried that, economically, it will take us into the very territory that has proved so problematic for continental Europe. Employment taxes are high, growth is relatively disappointing and overall taxation is higher than continental Europe would wish because pensions have to be financed on a pay-as-you-go basis.

Geraint Davies: Is the hon. Gentleman's basic thesis that it is wrong to give the poor more because it encourages them to be poor?

Howard Flight: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make such a crass observation. My point is essentially the same as that made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. The policy that addresses the immediate issue of providing an adequate income in old age for those with inadequate private sector pension provision is shaping the future. It will affect behaviour and take us down a relatively unsustainable path. There are other ways to address the issue.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is going rather wide of the scope of this debate.

Howard Flight: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was endeavouring to deal with the intervention from the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Geraint Davies).
	Some Conservatives have welcomed the minimum income guarantee and pension credit increases as a well intentioned attempt to address a current problem. However, targeting would be much more appropriate than means-testing, and we should consider treating older pensioners as a block, which would be better than giving them the ridiculous 25p increase that many of them regarded as a joke. I fear that, unknowingly and with good intent, the Government are presiding over what will become a major problem in the area of pensions. They are adopting an approach that, economically and in terms of the effect on private sector pension saving in particular, is the very opposite of their alleged policy, which we all want: healthy and rising private sector pension saving.

Andrew Selous: I wish to look at some of the order's consequences for couples, families and the care of children in particular, and to consider the philosophy and structure that underpins the uprated benefits.
	I welcome the increases in individual benefits, but I want to draw the House's attention to the overall collective impact of such benefits, particularly on couples and children. I ask the House to focus on the reason why a quarter of dependent children in the UK live in households headed by a single adult. The European Union average is 14 per cent., and even in northern European nations such as the Netherlands and Luxembourg, the figure is only 10 per cent. One main reason for that difference is the structure of our tax and benefits system.
	Britain bases tax on an individual assessment, with no allowance for the number of dependants whom one income must sustain. The benefits system that we are looking at is based on joint assessment, which carries penalties for marriage or stable cohabitation. Remaining in an undeclared or informal partnership means that each partner is assessed separately for benefits. I shall come on to a couple of examples in a moment, but generally it is the case that openly cohabiting couples have a reduction in their welfare entitlements of about £70 a week. Although the Government, and, indeed, all parties talk about supporting family life and stable relationships, they must realise the penalties in the current system of which the benefits are part.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should relate his remarks to the order, which is about increases.

Andrew Selous: I shall do so, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I may, I would like to come to two examples relating to the benefits.

Madam Deputy Speaker: If the examples are germane to this debate, that would be appropriate.

Andrew Selous: With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with those examples relating to the benefits, increases to which we are discussing tonight.
	A lone mother living with a one-year-old child in local authority housing and not in paid work would currently qualify for child benefit, housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support of £157.80. The father of her child who is living on his own in a local authority flat and not in paid work would qualify separately for benefits of £103.97, which means that the two of them have a combined weekly income, before paying rent and council tax, of £261.77. If the couple married or established a stable cohabitation, their income under the current system would fall by £70.47, and they would have a joint income of only £191.30, which is a considerable disincentive.

Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman has done his research, looked at the figures and thought this through. However, if those two people were living together, the second rent would not have to be paid at all, so the difference in their disposable income is not £70, but probably £20 or £30. A couple with any commitment is not going to live apart for £30, although it is fair to say that they may try not to disclose the fact that they are living together. Surely, the only alternative is for the rates we are discussing today to be not 160 per cent. for a couple but 200 per cent. That would be a huge increase in expenditure which I do not suppose the hon. Gentleman's Front Benchers would allow him.

Andrew Selous: I accept that the hon. Gentleman made a relevant point about the costs of second property. However, in the figures I looked at, £70 a week is significantly more than the cost of renting an additional property. We have a problem with the fact that the household's taxation is based on an individual, but assessment of the benefits whose uprating we are discussing tonight is based on the whole household. I am trying to illustrate the fact that that fundamental mismatch is the nub of the problem. My thesis is that that is the core reason why a quarter of children in this country—

Steve Webb: indicated dissent

Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he needs to explain why 25 per cent. of children in this country live in households headed by a single adult; the European average is 14 per cent, and in the Netherlands and Luxembourg it is only 10 per cent.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I once again remind the hon. Gentleman that the scope of this debate is quite narrow; it is about the increase in the levels of benefit, not eligibility criteria?

Andrew Selous: I willingly accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was merely responding to the intervention of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb).
	The policies that I have been talking about and the perverse incentives that are their result are responsible for tying up unnecessarily a large amount of our housing stock. There is the cost to the Government in terms of council tax and housing benefit. I am aware in my constituency, as are other Members who represent other constituencies, of extreme pressure on housing. The motions that we are considering are in part responsible for tying up housing stock.

Tim Boswell: As the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, in the only Back-Bench contribution made by a Labour Member, this has been an enjoyable debate. It has also been an interesting debate, if one that has not as yet extended itself as far as it might.
	The debate was introduced by the Secretary of State in a terse, though not perhaps peremptory, manner. He had some good news to bring to the House about increases in benefit, which are always welcome where they are obtainable, although they were somewhat rubbished by the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), who made a characteristically interesting speech. I did not agree with much of the detail, but I did agree with some of the broad sweep.
	We have had some heavyweight contributions from those on the Opposition Benches. The first was from my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who has apologised for having to leave the Chamber early to fulfil another engagement. He made a powerful speech of analysis of what was wrong with benefits and the present structure.
	Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) prevented me from speaking even more discursively than I might have been minded to. Indeed, he even lifted one of the quotations that I was about to share with the House. I shall not repeat it.
	With characteristic concerns, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) referred to some of the moral hazards within the present system, while not perhaps having yet reached a completely watertight solution that would resolve the situation.
	All this suggests that there is much life in what most of us have learned to call social security, which we must now learn to call work and pensions. This is a worthwhile and important debate. The Government have lessons to learn; indeed, they have been taught some sharp lessons in the past, and they would be well advised to keep their ears and eyes open to the changing tides of opinion.
	I am conscious that there is a fine line to draw. You have already rightly reminded the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we are discussing uprating motions that are about mathematical adjustments to benefits that have not broadly been changed in scope on this occasion. They may have been altered in their sweep and their effect by substantial changes in one or two instances, but the structure remains largely unchanged.
	It is very much within the sweep of Government policies that there should be a parallel consideration of the current state of the private sector in terms of the provision of retirement incomes. I shall have occasion to refer to the Government's objective to rebalance the financing of people's income in retirement between state provision and private sector provision. All of us on both sides of the House agree that those should operate like two blades of the scissors. We will not immediately remove one blade; we may just put one blade on top, instead of underneath.
	There are genuine concerns, which is hardly surprising. The right spirit, especially when the Government have a reasonable amount of time to respond to the debate, is that they should take seriously the points that are being made and answer them.
	The House would not expect me to be over-solicitous of the interests of Ministers. It must be extraordinarily distasteful for any Work and Pensions Minister to have to read the recent press, particularly the weekend press, with the cornflakes.

Ian McCartney: Porridge.

Tim Boswell: Indeed. The right hon. Gentleman rightly reproves me. There is nothing wrong with porridge. It no doubt accounts for his achievements today in the hospital downrating issue, to which I shall return.
	At the beginning of our constituency week of absence, under the rather terse headline "Pensions crisis deepens", The Sunday Telegraph reported:
	"Stakeholders have bombed, annuity rates are tumbling and companies are ditching final salary schemes".
	More pointedly, in an article to which my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs referred, in The Times last Saturday, under the heading, "Poor get poorer as Whitehall meddles with retirement", Graham Searjeant posed the simple question:
	"How did it all go wrong?"
	Tonight's debate is about the uprating of the state side of retirement income through the benefit system. The relevance of the general torrent of concern that has built up in the past few weeks is that it exposes the huge difficulties that Ministers face in their avowed—and perfectly sensible—objective of rebalancing the mix, which is currently 60 per cent. state-provided and 40 per cent. private-provided, so that the percentages are broadly reversed.
	I have no quarrel with that objective of the Government's, but along with the authorities whom I have already mentioned, there is the palpable fact that companies are bailing out of defined benefits schemes and replacing them with defined contributions, with generally less generous employer contributions to pensions. That means that any realistic prospect of achieving that objective is fast receding. The reliance on state benefits may well increase, not diminish, in future.
	I toss in two other points. The first is that a major culprit in all this was that disastrous decision in Government's very first Budget in 1997 to remove payable tax credits from dividends, at a cost of some £5 billion a year to pension schemes alone. I happened to be serving on our Treasury team at the time and alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), we fought hard in Committee to explain the dangers, though perhaps not many were listening at the time. They are now. The Government were then prepared to rejoice in what they felt was an entirely painless stealth tax. Now they are living to regret it.
	My second point, to which we shall properly return in another context shortly, when the State Pension Credit Bill reaches the House, is that the Government's vaunted pension credit legislation will make matters worse, by both increasing complexity and providing direct disincentives to long-term saving.
	The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who is an unusual absentee from tonight's debate, was quoted in the article in The Sunday Telegraph to which I referred as saying that
	"it would be madness for anyone in Labour's target stakeholder group to even think of buying one."
	He was reported as saying:
	"There's no way they can save enough to provide a better pension than they'd get from the minimum income guarantee."
	Very well then—what of the state pension itself? Of course, the current situation is a bit better for Ministers than their somewhat scarring experience with regard to the April 2000 uprating of 75p. There is a school of thought that goes under the simple caption "Never again 75p." One assumes that that experience will not recur. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of State said that it was the right thing to do and that he did not argue for more. However, he is arguing for more tonight, so we will not blame him for that. The change in retirement benefits comes alongside a number of changes that I personally welcome, including those affecting disabled people, not least in relation to independent living funds, for example.
	This year—let us make no bones about it—the basic pension will increase by £3 for single pensioners and by £4.80 for couples. Effectively, the Government have committed themselves to a 2.5 per cent. minimum increase in future years, regardless of the rate of inflation. At the same time, however, the risk remains that the minimum income guarantee, which is tied to earnings, certainly for the remainder of this Parliament, may outstrip even the ratcheted-up basic pension increase. I notice that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has suggested that by 2038, the MIG could be worth twice the value of the basic pension. To put it another way, the value of the MIG at that time would be equivalent to an implied pension pot that would, if converted into an annuity, approach a six-figure sum. People would have to save at least that sum to get more than they would have done from the minimum income guarantee.
	The first result is more means-testing, however it is described. I accept that there is a difference between careful targeting and means-testing. The issue has to be handled with very great sensitivity and, dare I say it, a degree of scepticism. The second consequence is a downgrading of the value of the basic pension, so that it becomes a mere supplement to other sorts of income, including those generated by the minimum income guarantee. We must also consider poor take-up—perhaps only two thirds of the MIG target group. The Secretary of State referred to a figure of 2 million, but I understand that some previous official take-up figures have suggested a level of 1.7 million. If he has improved take-up, that is welcome. It has also been suggested that, as pension credits develop, about two thirds of all pensioners could be sucked into what is a means test by any standards. A final concern, which was raised by the hon. Member for Northavon, is that all these arrangements still give very little acknowledgement to the growing number of elderly patients, with their distinctive needs and characteristically high poverty.
	It is interesting to contrast what is happening now with the long-term figures, which suggest that one third of all benefits are means-tested—I refer not only to pensions—compared with only 8.5 per cent. of total benefit spending at the initiation of the modern scheme under the Attlee Government. Today, one modestly encouraging concession has been given: extension of the qualifying period for hospital downrating to 13 weeks. However, I have never seen a concession so rushed out, having been so unexplained, by any Department at any time.
	The Minister for Pensions will have some time for his reply. Perhaps he can clarify the figures that the Secretary of State gave earlier and confirm the maths. There is a confusion between pensioners and other beneficiaries, but can he tell us the number of people who will benefit and at what cost in terms of the £60 million that is currently raised through hospital downrating? How many will remain in the scheme and at what cost to them? When we prepared our case on hospital downrating, I did some figure work. The total disallowance could be £2,000 a head. That means a sharp descent when benefit is withdrawn.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Havant said, restoring benefit remains a genuine administrative problem, to which Ministers need to pay more attention. For example, they should consider what are technically called the outliers in distributing the restored benefit. It is all very well saying that the average time taken to restore benefit is three or four days, but reapplying for benefit is not the first matter that a pensioner leaving hospital considers. Uneven distribution may mean that some pensioners lose out for an inordinate length of time.
	Although the Government's concession is welcome, they should explore further with representative organisations whether flaws, especially administrative flaws, remain in the system. Now that they have taken the heart out of the system in terms of cost, they should consider how much benefit and revenue they continue to get from it.
	Our emphasis tonight has been on the pension increase above inflation, but we should not overlook some of the wider implications. Everyone knows the financial strains of the current system; they will not go away. They were well set out in the context not only of this country but of the world in a recent survey in The Economist. If all hon. Members studied the table that shows the change in distribution of pensioner numbers in Japan between 1950 and today, they would understand why Secretaries of State will always have a problem of containment.
	Of course the Government want to relieve some of the burden of dependency. I doubt whether they will admit to wanting to adopt the method of increasing the retirement age, or, to put it more positively, removing some of the disincentives to continuing to work. We may have further comments to make about ageism and age discrimination. Employers' simple acceptance of continuing to employ fit and able employees will be an important social change. It matches the wider objective of encouraging people to stay on at work while they feel able to do that and thus enhance their pension. They may need to do that.
	Some unfairness and potential policy hazard is buried in uprating. Although the basic pension is increasing by more than 4 per cent., the extra components such as the additional pension and the graduated pension allowance continue to increase by 1.7 per cent. If the Government are prepared to be generous on the one hand, the imbalance will increase and convey the worst possible signal to those who contemplate staying on at work.
	No one has commented on the new pension service that will come into play in only a few weeks and provide the benefits. Ministers may choose to reflect and, indeed, comment on the fact that, now that we have had the press release and the characteristic flood of adjectives about the new service—it is "modern", it is "high quality", et cetera; that is all I get in written answers on the subject—they now have to provide the service for pensioners.
	I am a keen reader—and, dare I say it, a modest advocate—of the Department for Work and Pensions newsletter for advisers, intermediaries and other professionals. I am not sure whether I qualify as one of those, but I do my best. The newsletter is known as Touchbase, and we can all get it if we ask for it. The edition that has just reached me is the winter 2001–02 edition, so it is a bit late, rather like the winter fuel payments—but we will leave that aside. An article in the newsletter makes it clear that 26 new centres are to be provided for the pension service. These centres are only just getting under way, and claims will not, in the rather charming phrase of the article, even begin to "migrate from local offices" to the pioneering centre in Burnley until mid-April.
	By 2005, however, everything will be all right, because the article concludes that all sites should be operating the optimum best-practice model, and that the policy of the Government is clearly one of continuous improvement. Of course, that will be the case only if one happens to be a pensioner who can send an e-mail or succeed in getting through to the centre by phone.
	More seriously, perhaps, there are genuine concerns among the retirement associations and those representing older people about the division of departmental responsibilities implicit in the division between the pension service and Jobcentre Plus. Pensioners have an interest not only in pensions. For example, they may well have dependents, and some might still be in receipt of child benefit. Others might be at work, or might need to access disability services.

Vernon Coaker: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a pension service dedicated to pensioners is more likely to attract them to contact it when they need to than is the current arrangement? Is this not a good change that is taking place?

Tim Boswell: I hope that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman, but Ministers must handle this matter with more attention than we have publicly been aware of, or at least allow us to have a debate about the issues. If this service works seamlessly as a one-stop shop, and if people in the service are capable of answering questions on child benefit, for example, or of getting a prompt answer delivered to a pensioner, that will be fine. If it does not work properly, however, and pensioners are shuffled from, say, Burnley to Bootle, it will be very bad news.
	Implicit in this debate has been a concern on both sides of the House about take-up, and the way in which the system works in practice. It will be great if it works, but it is quite clear to all of us that it does not work as it is intended to. It may even be clear to some of us that if it did work as it was supposed to, take-up would increase to a level that might give rise to concern for the Chancellor in relation to some of the benefits being paid. However, that is perhaps an argument for another day.
	More attention should be paid to the delivery of the pension service than it has hitherto received. Let me be positive, however, and say that I am pleased that Ministers propose to involve the voluntary sector in the delivery of services, but that must be genuinely bureaucracy-free and comprehensive. That is my response to the point made by the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).
	The Minister has ample time to reply and I shall be friendly to him, as I hope I always am, by reminding him that the late Iain Macleod—a great fellow Scot, though a Conservative, whom I admired immensely—always advised young politicians against shooting Santa Claus even when Santa Claus was one legged. I do not suggest that Ministers have been tremendously generous, but they have made advances and a further concession has been wrung out of them today.
	Although there are matters that can be welcomed—we shall not divide the House on the orders—it is clear from the tone of the debate that there are serious questions to be answered by Ministers. Frankly, the climate for pensions generally and for the income of pensioners, whatever its level and whatever their status and way of life, is deteriorating. If Ministers remain in denial and do not address that, we could all end up losers.

Ian McCartney: I thank hon. Members for what has been, for the most part, a useful and interesting debate—it says here. Before proceeding, I must tell Opposition Members and my colleagues that I shall answer the points made tonight, so I give the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) a word of caution. I do not intend to go over the ground covered in our previous two pensions debates in the past few weeks.
	I do not say that as a criticism, but much of the hon. Gentleman's contribution and of his hon. Friends' speeches was about general pension issues, which I am more than happy to debate on Second Reading and in Committee when we discuss the State Pension Credit Bill and when we examine over the coming months a range of issues, such as the simplification review, the Sandler review and the rest of it.

Tim Boswell: I feel particularly generous tonight and I am also conscious of the rather tight nature of the orders and the debate that flows from them. I am content for the Minister to reserve his responses on the wider matters for other and perhaps more appropriate occasions, but will he at least undertake to consider seriously the points made by a number of colleagues about the current situation, which genuinely concerns us? Ministers must not resort to denial.

Ian McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and reassure him that my colleagues and I always take the comments of hon. Members seriously, even when they do not deserve the seriousness that we attach to them. A number of specific points have been raised and I shall try to answer them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) raised issues about attendance allowance, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them. His point was about take-up, which relates to the pension service, and I shall write to colleagues about the next stage of its development. I remind the hon. Member for Daventry that at each stage we have written either directly to the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned or to Members generally.
	I have no problem with maintaining a close working relationship with colleagues during the delivery of the pension service in a rolling programme over the next few years. I want Members on both sides of the House and their staff to be involved proactively so that we are as one on that. This Government are not a secret society, believe it or not, and we want to engage with colleagues in respect of development and delivery of the service.
	The orders confirm our conviction that it is essential to provide effective support for those who cannot work or are retired, while promoting the principle of work for those who can. We are continuing to put right the wrongs of the past. Over the 18 years before we came to power, millions were discarded to a life of poverty. Listening to the hon. Member for Daventry, I would never have thought that the Conservatives were in government for 35 of the past 50 years. In government, we have done something about hospital downrating, we have done something about means-testing and we have done something about pensioner poverty—to cut it rather than to create it. That is an aside. I shall not get partisan. [Laughter.] I shall try my best not to be too partisan.
	There are some key figures. The estimated cost of the uprating for 2002-03 is £2.985 billion: £2.06 billion for the elderly, £480 million for the sick and people with disabilities, £330 million for families, £65 million for the unemployed, and £50 million for widows and others with special needs. We are taking action to cut the costs of economic and social failure with a combination of sound economic management and policies to increase employment. We are investing in public services to tackle issues such as health inequalities and poor housing, and to get extra help to priority groups.
	We were not prepared to allow generation after generation to suffer the indignity of poverty, be it relative, absolute or persistent. We have addressed the legacy of pensioner poverty head-on, introducing the minimum income guarantee so that poorest pensioners will be at least £15 a week better off. Rough and ready the guarantee may have been, but we were the first Government ever to challenge pensioner poverty. From a standing start, 1.7 million pensioner households and 2 million individual pensioners are now receiving the minimum income guarantee. We are the first Government to intervene in the cycle of pensioner poverty—a cycle for which I refuse to apologise. The Conservative party created it; the Liberal Democrats talk about it; at least this Government are doing something about it.
	We have made significant progress towards reaching our long-term objective of ending child poverty within a generation, and halving it within 10 years. We have introduced a range of tax and benefit reforms to give help at the time when families need it most. We have made record increases in child benefit, extended the mobility component of disability living allowance to three and four-year-olds, and delivered wide-ranging reforms to ensure that work pays and to make work possible. Measures such as the national minimum wage and working families tax credit have helped to ensure that people are better off in work.
	The history pages will make clear the Tories' legacy. They failed to provide help for those who needed help most; it is now up to us to do so.
	We know that it is particularly hard for families on low incomes to bring up children with disabilities, so we are again providing substantial extra help for disabled children. The order gives an additional £5, on top of normal uprating, for the poorest families, bringing the disabled child premium to £35.50 a week. There has been an increase of more than £15 a week since 1996. That will benefit about 80,000 children.
	To help remove the barriers to work from people with severe disabilities and to make sure that work pays for them, their earnings or their partners' earnings will no longer be taken into account for independent living fund assessments. The hon. Member for Daventry acknowledged that. The change will be worth an average of £130 a week to those families. We will also extend help to people with savings of up to £18,500 by increasing capital limits in relation to the fund. That is in addition to the increase in the independent living fund from £109.6 million in 1996–97 to £131.3 million in 2000–01.
	We are doing more than ever to help families balance their work and home lives. That was raised by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), although I think he took a somewhat different line. We actually believe in helping families. It does not matter to us whether they are single-parent families, or whether a parent is absent; children are the most important aspect. They are our future, and every child in the country counts.
	The standard rate of maternity allowance and statutory maternity pay will rise from £62.20 to £75 a week. That will benefit about 340,000 families a year, and is the largest weekly increase in the benefit since February 1958. The sure start maternity grant will rise from £300 to £500, giving a further substantial increase to mothers on low incomes. The new deal and other measures have already helped 100,000 single parents into employment and out of poverty.
	We are again giving significant help to the elderly. We are committed to the demise of pensioner poverty. We will, as promised, increase the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings, to £98.15 for a single person and £149.80 for a couple. That shows our continuing commitment to ensuring that our pensioners benefit directly from the growing prosperity of this country. As a direct result of the minimum income guarantee, a single person will be at least £15 per week better off and a pensioner couple £23 per week better off than in 1997. In conjunction with winter fuel payments and free television licences, that will make a single pensioner at least £18 per week better off, while a pensioner couple will have gained more than £27 per week.
	We shall debate pension credit soon. That is another significant measure in the modernisation of the welfare state, giving positive support to more than 5 million pensioners.
	Between now and the introduction of the credit, we will continue to ensure that those on low and modest incomes can share in the growing prosperity. The transitional arrangements introduced in last year's order and continued in this year's order allow for that. As promised, the basic state pension will be increased by £3 to £75.50 a week in April 2002 for single pensioners and by £4.80 to £120.70 for couples.
	The state second pension that is being introduced this April will, as it builds, give more help to those on lower earnings or with broken work records such as carers and people with disabilities. That will mean additional help to 18 million people who are left out of the current system because of the modernisation of the pension system through the introduction of the state second pension.
	As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced earlier, we have reviewed the rules governing the reduction in benefit when one of our clients goes into hospital. Put simply, we will no longer downrate benefit, whether it be for pensioners or other customers, after the recipient has been in hospital for six weeks. In effect we have doubled the six-week rule so that benefit will continue to be paid in full for 13 weeks. As most hospital stays, including those of pensioners, are shorter than 13 weeks, most people will not see a reduction in their weekly income. An estimated 26,000 people will benefit at a cost of around £40 million. Approximately 20,000 of those beneficiaries will be pensioners.
	One would have thought from the churlish response of Opposition Members, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative, that they had debated the matter, done something about it, or even spoken about it. The truth is that they said nothing and did nothing until a public statement only a few months ago by organisations representing older people.
	However, we had already made it clear in the public domain that we were reviewing the matter. We have not responded to older people's organisations. Their contribution to the debate came after I had made it clear that we were going to look at the matter with the Department of Health. We have done that. We have been honest and loyal to that pledge. Having done it, we have come forward with proposals.
	The hon. Member for Daventry asked what other beneficiaries were affected. This has been a comprehensive statement by the Government. It has related not just to the retirement pension but to bereavement allowance, widow parents' allowance, widow mothers' allowance, widow's pension, age-related widow's pension, incapacity benefit, severe disablement benefit, unemployment supplement, industrial death benefit, income support, the minimum income guarantee, pension credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be less churlish.

Tim Boswell: We will not debate the tone of our response, but the Minister of State has given information that was not in his press release. I ask him to go back to the organisations representing older people and look with them long and hard at whether he can to some extent either ease the requirements or improve the performance of the Department in ensuring that benefit is restored quickly where it is withdrawn. That is the major outstanding concern. It would help everyone if he gave an assurance that he will at least look at that.

Ian McCartney: We have a common approach in our Department. We work with all the stakeholders regularly. That work is about not just policy but how we can manage the service better. If the hon. Gentleman wants an assurance, that is exactly what we are doing. We are involving stakeholders in the design of the pension service locally. There is potential for them to be involved in our outreach work in the community with older people. It is part of the Government's strategy of engaging with older people: not just providing services passively but being proactive and involved where pensioners are based—in their local community—working with pensioner organisations and stakeholders. It has been an ongoing policy of the Government since we won the general election in 1997.
	We have created the better government for older people project and a Cabinet sub-Committee on older people. We are the first Government ever to have a strategy for people over 50, working across Government to introduce better services, to develop policy and initiatives. This Government are alive to the needs of pensioners—unlike the previous Government, who ignored them.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) asked about long-term care and hospital downrating. Those in long-term care are generally left with a personal expenses allowance after paying their care home fees. That is intended to strike a fair balance between financial help and state providers, and avoid double provision.
	In addition, a great deal of work has been done in connection with residential care in nursing homes. The abolition of preserved rights gives registered protection for local authorities' contractual arrangements for the first time. The phasing out of residential and part III accommodation rates will provide a fairer system of funding for long-term care. At the moment, about half of all preserved rights customers do not have enough public support to cover their fees. Many have to pay some of their personal allowance towards the fees. The new arrangements will mean that those customers no longer have to do that.
	Some questions were asked about the uprating of disability and carers benefits in connection with invalid care allowance. The regulatory reform order currently before the deregulation Committees of the House of Lords and the House of Commons will provide for the removal of the upper age limit for claims for invalid care allowance, and the introduction of a caring entitlement condition for people over 65. We have said that, with parliamentary approval, we want to introduce that by autumn 2002.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked what had happened to housing benefit reform. The strategy for housing benefit was set out in response to the consultation on the housing Green Paper in December 2000. First, we are working with local authorities to drive up standards of service, tackle fraud and error and reduce barriers to work. Secondly, we have begun rent restructuring in the social rented sector. We believe that it is essential to level those two stages before considering more fundamental structural reform.
	The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) asked about improving the take-up of housing benefits. Local authorities have been given a legal duty to encourage take-up of housing benefit and council tax benefit. Much of that is achieved in day-to-day business rather than through special campaigns—but we are not complacent, and we support local campaigns when they take place.
	We do a lot of campaigning about entitlements—but when we do, the Opposition usually complain that we are spending money. What is wrong with giving people an entitlement and then telling them about it? When we do that the Opposition complain, but when they come to a debate here, they complain that we are not doing enough of it. What do they want? Do they want us to let people know or not? My colleagues and I are prepared to work with the stakeholders to produce effective innovative approaches to campaigning on take-up, and we continue to do that on a regular basis—and when we do, the Opposition spokesman complains.
	I think that on pensions strategy we agree that there must be partnership, but I must make one point about the scaremongering that we have heard: 66 per cent. of large employers still have some form of pension provision. We have introduced the simplification review, the Myners review, the minimum funding requirement and the Sandler review. We are the first Government in history to take seriously the need to carry out a fundamental review of ways to help the providers of pensions to continue to provide them on a basis of partnership.
	I think that we will come back to this debate when the Sandler review is in the public domain. There is also the simplification review, and the implementation of the minimum funding requirement arrangements following the Myners report, to which we are already committed.
	Let us be clear: the Government support and are alert to the need to increase the pool of employees who have a vehicle for their pension, whether that be a stakeholder pension, a defined benefit, a defined contribution or some other form. It is important to work with employers to continue that provision.
	It is interesting to note that contributions to non-state pensions are at their highest ever—£19 billion up in real terms since the 1997 election. We are not complacent, but we are the first Government ever to participate effectively with the industry on an ongoing basis to find ways of improving and maintaining pension funds and access to pensions. For those who did not have access, we have created the stakeholder pension to give them access for the first time. Six hundred thousand people who this time last year had no access to a pension fund now have access because of the stakeholder system—and that will continue to grow. More than 80 per cent. of the targeted employers who last year had no vehicle to create a pension fund for their employees now have one.
	That is progress. This is the first Government in a generation to make progress and benefit large numbers of people who were abandoned by the Conservatives with no hope of a pension—and the Liberals had no view about that at all.

Robert Smith: On defined benefit pensions and final salary pensions, some companies are saying that times are hard and that they are going to get rid of the schemes—as a constituent who visited my surgery on Friday has been told—so will the Minister point out to those companies that when times were good they took a contributions holiday? The Government will have to work with such companies to honour the moral contract. At present, employers are saying, "I wasn't around then so I don't have to pay the consequences".

Ian McCartney: Another Liberal Democrat campaign tactic! We have held Adjournment debates on those issues recently and the hon. Gentleman's party did not participate. If the hon. Gentleman had serious points to make, he should have listened to his hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) who spoke earlier and whose pensions policy was economic illiteracy. The Liberals' pensions policy is economic illiteracy. The problem for the Liberals is that the hon. Member for Northavon cannot agree with the leader of his party on their policy for the next election. He came to plead for support from the House because he cannot get it from the leader of the Liberal Democrat party.
	I ask my hon. Friends to support both orders. I commend the orders to the House. We are the first Government in more than a generation with a strategy to end poverty among children, a strategy to tackle and end poverty among older people and a strategy to make work pay. At last, we have a Government who are on the side of all the citizens of this country—not like the last Government, who abandoned them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.

PENSIONS

Resolved,
	That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2002, which was laid before this House on 6th February, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Equal Treatment Directive

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 14492/01, the Opinion of the European Commission on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the draft Directive amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions; and supports the Government's aim of maintaining the Council's common position which updates the Equal Treatment Directive in line with case law and developments in European law.—[Mr. McNulty.]
	Question agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on 5th March, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Elfyn Llwyd and Mr. Alex Salmond as if that day were one of the Opposition Days allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business).—[Mr. McNulty.]

AGRICULTURE (WEST DORSET)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for Rural Affairs for spending time late in the evening listening, yet again—as has been the custom once a year—to the condition of agriculture in West Dorset. I wish that I could say that there would be a shorter list of problems than in previous years and that I could signal an end to this series of debates, but that is not so.
	I am sure that these facts will be entirely familiar to the Minister. Farm profitability in West Dorset remains—without hyperbole—abysmal. Smaller farmers continue to leave in droves. As the older farmers leave their family farms their children do not take over. More worryingly, even in our mid-sized farms—of between 200 and 500 acres—where considerable value-added is going on, trading is at close to break even.
	Production looks set to reduce further. As the Minister knows well, beef self-sufficiency in the United Kingdom has fallen generally by about 25 percentage points. That is reflected in what is going on in West Dorset beef farming. My pig farmers remain hugely concerned that they are at the tail end of an international price war and that Danish and Dutch pigs will see them out.
	Underneath all that lies a severe set of price pressures—again, the Minister is well aware of them. The price of milk heading downwards—from about 19.5p a litre to about 18p—puts most of my dairy producers at severe risk of unprofitability next year. Pigs are now at 89p a kilo and the price may be headed down. Cereal prices are tumbling out of bed.
	Some of that is entirely beyond the Minister's control: the temporary high level of the pound versus the euro—a frequent lament during recent years. Some of it is also certainly due to the demoralisation that attended foot and mouth disease. My farmers join the rest of the farmers in the UK in hoping that there will be—as there certainly should have been—a public inquiry.
	A great part of the problem remains structural. It is structurally impossible for my livestock producers to manage to be profitable in circumstances in which there is a huge differential in animal welfare standards and in the costs imposed by those standards between them and their competitors on the mainland. There is also a huge and similar difference in environmental regulations that affect cereal production.
	That is the lament. Although I suppose that I would have sought this debate to make that lament alone, I could have spared the Minister a few more minutes and ended there, were there only that bad news. So far, the picture has been similar to last year, and the year before that and the year before that. However, there is a further reason for requesting this debate tonight.
	As any Member representing a rural area will have done in the past months, I have met a range of farmers, including, most recently, the National Farmers Union representatives in my area.

Eric Martlew: That is no surprise.

Oliver Letwin: Indeed, it is no surprise.
	The good news is that the prominent farmers in my area see a ray of hope and believe that the Curry commission report points the way to a future for them. I want to draw out the critical elements of a way forward in the light of Curry, which might prevent me, many other Members and the Minister from having to have such debates on many occasions in the coming years. More importantly, the recipe, if adopted, might prevent the destruction of farming as we know it in West Dorset and similar areas.
	The first point that I want to draw out from Curry is an observation that almost merits the term "profound". He has given us a different picture of the way in which we ought to regard agriculture in the UK. Until now, romantics have seen UK agriculture as a nostalgic and delightful business, and have argued the case for subsidising it without regard to profitability, whereas those who have thought of themselves as realists have seen agriculture as much the same as any other competitive industry. By and large, as an economic realist about a wide range of industries, I would say, as the agricultural realists have been prone to say, that it does not matter too much whether Britain produces one kind of widget or not, or whether some widgets are imported and others produced locally.
	What we want, by and large, across industries, is an efficient, well-functioning economy that is open and competitive—one in which competitive advantage dictates whether we produce a given good or service or somebody else does. The realists have argued that the same applies to British agriculture. If British pig farmers, dairy farmers or other kinds of British farmer cannot compete with an outsider on the same rules of open markets obtaining in the UK, so be it—let our agriculture disappear. That struggle between the romantics and realists has pervaded the scene over many years.
	Curry offers us a way out of the morass of unproductive debate between an unsustainable nostalgia and a crypto- economic realism that is also unsustainable because there is no prospect of continued farming in the UK on the basis of sheer open markets with no subsidies and no national defence mechanisms. Curry offers us the possibility that we might regard farming in the UK, particularly in a place such as West Dorset, as a national environmental asset that can be sustained only if we treat it in a certain way and make it profitable on a long-term basis. Curry makes us consider the sustainability of farming in a place such as West Dorset as part of a UK-wide approach to a regulated industry, parallel in many respects to the utility industries.
	The best way to conceptualise that is to imagine the dreadful moment when the whole nation is turned into a park that is cared for by paid park keepers who are the minions of the Minister. In that scenario, Sir Humphrey presents the Minister with the wonderful prospect of diminishing the costs of keeping the park by allowing the keepers to keep animals and grow things. If we see farming on a regulated basis, as a United Kingdom- protected industry that is sustained as a single national enterprise over and against competitors on the continent and elsewhere, there is a hope of putting the fragmented pieces together into a coherent strategy that makes sense only because farming is the cheapest and most sensible way to preserve the rural character and the environmental advantages of our countryside.
	What elements does Curry identify that need to be put in place and that my farmers have alighted on to construct such a coherent national strategy? First, there needs to be a serious approach to research and development and to model farms—the New Zealand approach. New Zealand understands that it is a small country battling against the odds of the deficiencies of being far removed from most of its markets. The economy is in every other respect open.
	In the case of agriculture, New Zealand has expended huge efforts on enabling its farmers to learn from models and research and development, and to benefit from national direction and strategy, so that ordinary farmers can see how to go about their business in a way that is coherent with what is going on elsewhere in the country.
	The second element, which is allied to the first, is the need to develop the home market for home produce by producing high-value-added local niche products—to put it parochially, Dorset cheeses and Dorset hams in Dorset. Other counties would have their own products.
	The third element, which is perhaps more important than the other two, is a changed attitude to regulation. The comparison and contrast with the utility industries is constructive in this regard. Almost every utility regulation Bill has imposed a duty on the regulator to consider the interests of consumers and producers. He has to balance one against the other and to consider the return on assets that is achieved by the regulated entity. If a new regulation—be it environmental, health and safety or whatever—is imposed on the regulated utility, it becomes the duty of the economic regulator to assess the cost of that extraneous regulation on the industry that he is regulating and to allow it to recoup the cost as a return in its charging structure.
	No such system is in effect for British farming. I am not making a partisan attack; that has been true under Labour and Conservative Administrations alike for many years. If well intentioned Members introduce Bills and persuade Governments to impose a new regulation on my farmers in West Dorset, there is no corresponding allowance for that in any feature of the subsidy regime, the crypto-price control regimes or the tax regime. The farmers bear the double cost—the direct cost and the competitive cost.
	Economic impact assessments are febrile documents, as the Minister and I know. My farmers estimate that the figures in the impact assessment for the recent imposition of nitrate vulnerable zones are wrong by a factor of broadly four. That is typical. It has been the case over the years in many domains outside agriculture that the economic impact assessments presented to the House are the ludicrous fictions of optimistic officials who are guided by intense Ministers. Again, that is not a partisan remark. I regret to say that it has been true under regime after regime.
	If our regulatory arrangements for farming were so designed that the Treasury had to buy increases in exogenous regulation of our farmers by paying specific subsidies to the value of that regulation, the battle royal between the Treasury and DEFRA or other Ministers taking up an environmentalist or animal welfare standard on behalf of members of the ruling party's parliamentary party would be huge. The Treasury would then demand to understand whether the regulation in question was worth buying and the farmer would be recompensed. The likelihood is that, on both competitive and direct-subsidy grounds, a plethora of animal welfare and environmental regulation that is not matched by parallel regulation in our competing markets and unmatched by subsidy would no longer be imposed on our farmers.
	Fourthly, there must be a serious attitude on the part of the nation as a whole to animal health. At the moment, we have no serious, single national body responsible for policing animal health standards at our ports. The evidence from everyone who has ever visited a UK port or airport in pursuit of the agency or agencies that are controlling the import of dangerous substances is that there is no such single agency and that there are indeed no such agencies effectively policing those frontiers. I have wandered fruitlessly around both ports and airports attempting to find the agencies seriously involved.
	I do not say that efforts are not being made—they are—but by comparison with the scale of the problem, as recent reports have made clear, they are pathetically inadequate. The problem will not be solved until there is a single agency of government, rather than one of the seven or eight currently partially responsible, that becomes alone responsible for policing the frontiers.
	While we are at it, we need an agency specifically charged with the remit of producing contingency plans for disasters that occur as a result, as there always will be, of imperfections in border controls, even where those have been improved. The fact of the matter, as the Minister will very well be aware, is that whereas the Ministry of Defence has typically had contingency plans for hundreds of kinds of events that are unlikely ever to occur, MAFF and its successor DEFRA have traditionally—I fear that it is still so—had no contingency plans for many events that are almost certain to occur. We saw that most recently with foot and mouth, and we shall see it again in other spheres. Indeed, we shall see it until we have a single agency, whether the Food Standards Agency or another, charged with the business of contingency planning.
	Finally, if we are to see a changed attitude and to offer a prospect of sustainability, we must, as the Curry report clearly indicates, have a serious attitude to replacement of old farmers by young. There must be a serious effort to replace manpower. At the moment, there is no strategy for that, but until there is, we cannot expect a sustainable industry.
	Those five themes are small but crucial. My farmers see this as a decisive moment—not in the sense that it is noticeably worse than in years past. They have been so bad that this year is no worse. Rather, my farmers see this as a decisive moment in the sense that there is now a ray of hope in the shape of the Curry report. There is a way forward for the industry which has not previously been part of the political currency. It is up to the Government whether they will grasp that challenge or evade it.
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]

Oliver Letwin: Only a minute more, Mr. Speaker.
	If the response of the Minister's Department at this juncture is to evade the challenge by doing what the rumour mill has it the Secretary of State has in mind and inaugurating that wonderful Sir Humphreyesque device of a report on the report, my farmers will go into a state of despondency akin to despair. This is the moment at which the new Department needs to show that it is a new Department—that it has a new attitude, that it is willing to take the challenge of the Curry report and willing to offer my farmers, for the first time in many years, a realistic prospect of a sustainable future which will be to the huge advantage of our environment and our society.

Alun Michael: I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for managing to surprise us. He said that this was his annual debate, so that was not the surprise. He said that he had not come simply to lament, and that was true, given the nature of his contribution. He did not just repeat himself; in general, he gave what I can only describe as an endorsement of the Government's approach.
	In his initial remarks, the hon. Gentleman was right to say that we could hardly be totally positive about farming, given the horrendous time that farmers and the non-farming members of rural communities have experienced over the past 12 months. I am glad that he acknowledged that not all is within the power of the Government to change, and certainly not an individual Minister. He then gave a dutiful nod in the direction of a public inquiry. Without the Government's decision to have three specific inquiries—one dealing with the lessons to be learned, one dealing with the science in a searching way, using some of our most senior scientists, and one that establishes the commission on farming and food to look at the way forward for the industry—the hon. Gentleman could not have been as positive as he was in responding to the outcomes of the Curry commission's report.
	The hon. Gentleman spoke of meeting farmers who are still positive, despite their horrendous experience and the reasons they have to feel damaged and depressed—the months of foot and mouth disease and the difficulties faced by the industry. I have had the same experience in recent weeks. When I met farmers at a conference organised by the Bishop of Hereford, I expected a negative response. Instead, they were exchanging views on how to make themselves more competitive and how to bring more of the end-shelf price back to the farm and into the local community. In many ways their arguments were the same as those of us who argued for fair trade on the international scene. They want the opportunity to get a fair return; they are not looking for feather bedding.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are some rays of hope. That is not to be over-optimistic, because we face a challenging period over the coming months and years in moving to a sustainable farming and food industry for the long term. The hon. Gentleman is right that the Curry commission report points to the way forward. I assure him that the Government's response to the report will be thoughtful, as it should be. It will engage the stakeholders—the farmers and others—in designing the response, as it should do. It will also be practical and positive about the future.
	I liked the hon. Gentleman's description of romantics and realists, although I think that it should be romantics and pessimists, because the realists are now winning. Those who want a bright future for the farming and food industries, enormously important though they are, recognise that it must be achieved in the context of the world as it is, rather than as it was or as we wish it to be. That involves the ability to be competitive and imaginative, to provide quality and to market goods produced through a quality process.
	There are good examples of such initiatives in the hon. Gentleman's area. The local action group and partnership for rural economic development, "Dorset chalk and cheese", is aiming to add value to local products and to develop local employment opportunities. It is bringing together diverse stakeholders such as the Prince's Trust, the National Farmers Union and Weymouth college. In many ways, the west country as a whole has shown the way by branding the region through the "taste of the west" initiative, while retaining the personalities of individual local products, be they from Dorset, Cornwall or Devon. I am impressed by that approach.
	The hon. Gentleman considered different ways in which we might deal with the countryside, but let us be absolutely clear: we do not want to turn the countryside into a museum. The whole point of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is sustainable development. Sustainability means getting matters right environmentally, economically, and socially in the local communities. In our view, those three objectives—environmental, economic and social—are not alternatives. They are not options to be chosen from, but targets to be pursued in harmony with each other.
	That process needs the engagement of the whole community—the farming community and, indeed, the urban community. We should aspire to a better understanding between the urban and rural communities, and the hon. Gentleman certainly did not speak as if there are worlds between them. I hope that he agrees that we should remind both that they need each other, or that we need each other, depending on how one wants to put it. We should therefore see the positives in the countryside.
	The hon. Gentleman may be aware of our response to the recommendation of the rural taskforce, which was established at the height of the foot and mouth disease, and which I have had the honour to chair since the general election. The taskforce recommended taking action to attract people back to the countryside, but we recognised fairly quickly that people were indeed returning. In many cases, the tourism industry—which includes many farmers who have diversified—is experiencing stronger advance bookings than for a number of years.
	However, it was necessary to remind people of the benefits that the countryside provides. I am proud of the way in which the "Your Countryside, You're Welcome" campaign has developed. It is not a top-down Government publicity campaign but a Government-backed initiative—involving some 50 organisations such as the NFU and the Country Landowners Association—to remind people of the countryside's attractions. In doing so, it offers a positive image for farming and countryside communities, rather than simply being critical or looking on the downside. In many ways, that reflects the ray of realism but optimism that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the debate.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the example of New Zealand and a move away from dependence on subsidy. It is a different country with different pressures, but our need to move from production-related subsidy to an effective and competitive farming industry is at the heart of the Curry commission's recommendations. The report conveys realism and the fact that there are many environmental benefits, which are not financially productive as they do not pay the farmer for his work. It is right that those public benefits should be paid for by the public purse. There are increasing moves towards reform, both in the common agricultural policy and the England rural development programme. The Curry commission's proposals mapped out the more distant future, and we should respond to that.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of imports, which of course is divided into two; large imports—we need to make sure that regulations on them are properly observed—and small quantities that are brought into the country for personal consumption. Both kinds of import involve problems. We recognise the strength of concern about illegal imports and action is being taken. A high-level imports forum has been convened for next month to discuss what action, in addition to that which has already been taken, can be taken to detect and prevent illegal imports. However, the United Kingdom can never reduce the risk of importing disease to zero, so we must be prepared to deal with any outbreaks.
	The hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to suggest that there were no contingency plans, because there were. The lessons learned from the foot and mouth outbreak of the 1960s led to plans being drawn up and visited from time to time. However, no one anticipated the speed and virulence of the foot and mouth outbreak that we experienced last year. One positive was that it led many people and organisations to look afresh at the way we do things. Supermarkets, for instance, have looked at the way in which they procure their foodstuffs, which is extremely positive.
	The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the problem of low farm incomes and pointed to the way forward. We need to help farmers, as the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing, to reach a position in which their farm business is viable. For some people, that means organic conversion and being able to compete in a market with a large of proportion of imports; there is a market to be won back for British producers.
	Some people may have to get involved in a niche market, producing and marketing things so that more comes back to the primary producer; other people may have to look at the expansion of farmers markets, which we are strongly encouraging. Farmers markets come in many shapes and sizes, and I have seen a number of them around the country in recent months. There is a good example in Bristol; in the heart of the city, foodstuffs from the surrounding area are being marketed to people, who benefit from high-quality foodstuffs being brought into the city in an attractive way. There is also a benefit for the hinterland of the city. Sometimes an individual opens a shop, developing something on behalf of the wider community of farmers and their families.
	There are therefore a number of approaches to the problem; it is not just a question of farmers diversifying and everybody having one or two bed and breakfast rooms. Each business must find the right solution and choose the right options, given the support available through the England rural development programme, the rural enterprise scheme and other available options. We must encourage and help farmers to take those options. Recently, we have had a positive announcement from my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who has ministerial responsibility for farming, about increased optimism among farmers, who are restocking and going back to business now that they can see an end to foot and mouth.
	I have responded mainly to the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's speech, which was about looking forward, not backwards. It would be wrong not to acknowledge the fact that farmers have experienced a devastating period.
	There was the impact of foot and mouth disease, even in areas such as the one that the hon. Gentleman represents where there were few immediate cases, although the disease was not too far away. The farming community as a whole has been enormously damaged. In many instances, as we have seen through the excellent work of the rural stress network, individuals were traumatised by their experience. It is greatly to the credit of farming communities that they are responding positively to the recommendations that we have seen in the Curry commission's report. They are responding often not with over-optimism, but with a gritty determination to succeed in the business that they have chosen, and to meet the challenges of the future.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on making his points in a positive way. I am certain that that is the best way to represent the interests of the farming community. We should take forward the ideas that have been outlined in the policy commission's report. We should consider issues of efficiency and recommendations such as the establishment of a food chain centre to improve efficiency. For instance, we should consider ways of developing the red meat sector. We should examine demonstration farms so that lessons can be learned and carried forward in a more positive way.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to adding value, and I agree with him. It is not a matter of competing only for the market that is there, but developing markets for local and regional foods and engaging, for example, the regional development agencies, which have responded extremely positively to the challenge of helping rural communities and the rural economy cope with the results of foot and mouth disease. It is difficult to believe that we would have been able to respond so quickly and effectively without the work of the RDAs.
	We must examine diversification. That includes non-food crops, an integrated approach to businesses and the support of farmers through business advice that is effective and co-ordinated. We are considering how the inward rural development programme can be simplified and made easier to access. That is not without its problems, but we intend to do all that we can in that direction.
	Finally, there is the road, which the commission stressed, of supporting reform of the common agricultural policy. I know that the hon. Gentleman has taken an interest in the shifting of priorities away from the first pillar subsidy to the second pillar, and that is something that we shall pursue actively through the CAP's mid-term review.
	I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on initiating the debate and on discussing some of the issues that are for the future and how we implement the Curry commission's findings. These are issues on which the Government will report before long. We shall respond positively. I hope that from both sides of the Chamber we shall receive encouragement to help the farming community to develop, stand on its own feet and be successful for the future. That is the best way to have a thriving and living countryside that all can enjoy, and a successful farming industry. That is in the interests of everyone in this country, whether they live in rural or urban communities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Ten o'clock.